Thread: LOTR was unfilmable?
LOTR is unfilmable.
Although I think that PJ made the best adaptation that could be made and I even can understand why Tom Bombadil was omitted. as The journey from Hobbiton to the Prancing Pony would have been a movie in itself. I have always maintained that LOTR book and films cannot be compared they are both masterpieces of their media types.
I have always maintained that LOTR book and films cannot be compared they are both masterpieces of their media types.
I don't think the films are anywhere near masterpieces, but that aside, I think both works can be compared as far as faithfulness goes.
A literal version of TLOTR's would be a total disaster, it would be around 30 hours long, cost around a billion $'s and would be universally hated by critics and basically destroy Tolkiens wonderful name as a writer. Its unfortunate but true. I of course as well as most book fans would love it. Its not unfilmable because of effects etc, its unfilmable because of the structure of the actual story. Simply to write a script as its laid out in the book would be impossible. Tolkien skips over very important material which we know about because of the various other works and appendices.
Brego, I doubt even the most ardent 'purist' has ever asked for, and ever expected such a slavish approach to making an adaptation of The Lord of the Rings.
I rather think Tolkien fans want a good film that is faithful to the source material.
Not at all Galin. I am simply stating that the book is unfilmable, which is what this post is all about. Im highlighting that however 1 person or a group visualizes a written story is going to displease fans of the original work.
I for one would love to see a book fan made film of the book word for word, however Im stating that it would be filmatic suicide to do so...
Well then I'm not sure what the point is of stating that the book filmed in such a very strict fashion wouldn't work.
No filmmaker simply uses a long book (like the one under discussion) as a script, word for word, and makes a thirty hour, slavish marathon. Who will disagree that that wouldn't work in theaters?
Yes some filmakers have tried and failed because it very very rarely works and when it does its usually only people who are already going to love the work because it is word for word from the fount of the origin, they are called fans.
Really? What long book has been made into a word for word marathon film?
But it's this sort of (to my mind) exaggeration that I am wary about as an implied strawman -- in other words, I'm wary about the implication (even if unintended) that those who don't like Jackson's films don't like them because they are being way too unrealistic about the process of adaptation.
Galin, I bow to you and give up Im afraid, you are preaching to the converted!
I could list some "Long Books" which have been made in to film but alas Im sure you would reply again...
I could list some "Long Books" which have been made in to film ...
I didn't ask for long books that were made into films in any case -- but examples of word for word, very long film adaptations.
back in tolkiens time they could not have imagined what special effects wouold have been capable of. im glad they did make it into a movie. LOTR is what got me into sci-fi. I would like to see peter jackson do "the children of hurin" next. He might be too tired however. i thought i heard him say he was not going to touch the hobbit originally.... but then he changed his mind..... maybe we can get togather and start convincing him that there is a huge fan base out here that would like him to keep going with Tolkien stuff. The Silmarillion, The Children of Hurin, and more. I don't want the films to ever stop. "make haste!"
Well, I know some don't like to hear this, but no one currently has the right to film any Silmarillion or Children of Hurin, as copyright belongs to the Tolkien Estate.
These works were compiled and published by Christopher Tolkien of course, well after Tolkien sold the film rights to other works.
I don't know how much money was involved, but a deal was struck with United Artists in 1969 for the rights to The Lord of the Rings, who also secured the rights to The Hobbit. In 1976 Saul Zaentz Company acquired the film rights to both, in a deal also involving Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.
There must have been something in the contract allowing for the future, as the Tolkien Trust and publisher HarperCollins brought a lawsuit against New Line Cinema, and won (noting they were not alone with respect to suing New Line for money claimed to be owed).
As for the contract, Rayner Unwin wrote in his memoirs (with respect to the original deal made when JRRT was alive): 'A negotiation of nearly two years’ duration that was eventually consummated in a fifty-page contract, the complexities and uncertainties of which have dogged the publishers and the author’s estate ever since.'
And if interested about some film prospects that came about when JRRT was alive, see the thread linked below.
Thank you Galin. DId you like the movies?
Was it unfilmable? This is a very good question. I agree with those who said that it all depends on how you understand the "unfilmable" thing. Probably some years ago it would be really, technically & economically unfilmable, but CGI made it possible to film it. The thing is... I believe the story still is unfilmable in a way - there always will be something that the filmmakers won't be able to show - in the case with P. Jackson's movies is that there's a couple of events and characters that we didn't see there at all. And we should because they are a part of the book - with smaller or bigger impact on the story, everyone knows what I'm talking about. With movies there is a limitation when it comes to time (even if the Trilogy was split up into 3 separate parts) because most of the regular viewers won't remember the plot if you're going to split the story up and broadcast with some year long breaks. Peter Jackson tried it - and yes, he achieved it, but still didn't film the whole story.
Oh, by the way - I'm new here, so hello everyone!
Hello and welcome Indis!
I forgot to say that English isn't my first language, so I should warn you before I'll make some silly mistakes.