Login | Register
 
Message Board | Latest Posts | Your Recent Posts | Rules

Thread: How many movies would it take to tell the tale of the Ring?

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Silmarillion > How many movies would it take to tell the tale of the Ring?   
Assuming Christopher Tolkien could hand over filming right to the whole story, just how many movies would it take to tell the tale of the Ring?

I'll have to do more review of the Silmarillion before I give my final answer, what are anyone else's thoughts?
You mean, everything? The Silmarillion, the Hobbit, LOTR? (In other words, the whole history of Middle-Earth) Or just the prologue of FOTR? ("The forging of the great rings"Wink Smilie
I would start with the Forging of the rings with Celebrimbor. Showing that all the rings were made for the elves. Then that after Sauron put his on the elves knew him and removed theirs. That's when Sauron gave them to lesser races (men and dwarves). The Sauron rose to power, only to be challanged by Ar-Pharazon, last king of Numenor. Only then to corrupt Ar-Pharazon further and drive him against the Valar. This then caused the fall of Numenor (the Akellebeth). With the fall comes the flight of Elendil, Isildur and his brother (can't remember his name) and the founding of Arnor and Gondor. Arnor's Build up and then alliance with Gil-Galad that culminated in Sauron loss of the ring and the fall of Elendil and Gil-Galad.
I guess it kind of would make the films simply the history of the world after the fall of Morgoth/Melkor.
If Lord of the Rings was an unfilmable book, the History of Middle Earth is an unfilmable story. I mean, sure it would be cool to see all these epic stories- the Fall of Numenor, Gondolin etc. on film, but how can you tell a story that lasts for hundreds, thousands of years, and still have believable character arcs. I mean, they're going to have enough trouble with the bits between the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings because of the time problems there, but as for before that- from the creation of the Valar to the making of the rings of power is so scattered and undirected that there's no way you could structure it and still stay true to history. They might want to make a movie based on one particular story, for instance, the fall of Gondolin or the story of Beren would be good material.
I think you can't really tell it all. However, I think that it would be really cool if they were to make movies out of Tolkien's three "great tales": Of Beren and Luthien, Of Turin Turambar (or The Narn i Hin Hurin), and Of the Fall of Gondolin. Since Tolkien never really completed the last, perhaps it would only be feasible to do the first two, but I think that they could truly be made into [i:3s1lbkx8]amazing[/i:3s1lbkx8] movies.

Oh, and Isildur's brother is Anarion.
That is exactly what I was thinking about, Luthien. Of course, I would like to see movies made out of the whole Silmarillion, but if not, I would like to see Beren and Luthien (that should sell very well), Turin, and Gondolin. They kind of go hand-in hand, too. They all happen in succession, and could be marketed as a trilogy.
Personally, I think that about 10 movies could be made from the Silmarillion. But I admit that not all of these would be very salable.
Christopher Tolkien is old- he'll die sooner or later. Although it will be sad, perhaps his successor will have a more cordial relationship with Saul Zaentz. Who knows? You're right, the tale of Beren and Luthien could definitely be turned into a great movie.
I agree, Beren and Luthien would make a great movie.

But then comes Turnin Turumbar. Lots of material there. Especially with the resently printed more fleshed out [i:2o673poe]Children of Hurin[/i:2o673poe] that Christopher Tolkien released. But is the general movie public ready for that one?
Turin married his sister. Granted, he didn't know who she was, but remember, these are the people who worried about The Two Towers because of 9/11.
Then he just goes from land to land. Always becoming a leader and urging open war. Only to get the city destroyed time and again. He just keeps trying until finally killing himself. This wasn't John Henry who beat the steam engine, but died from the work. This was a man with blood on his hands, [b:2o673poe]lots[/b:2o673poe] of blood. Who finally plants his own sword through himself.
Taken as a part of the entire tapestry that is the war of the Jewels, the story was great. But as a separate movie, I don't know if it would play well with audiences. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't know if Fantasy Action filmgoers are ready for that sort of Tradgedy.

To do those three, Beren, Turnin & Gondolin, you really have to go the whole nine yards and get Earendil to call upon the Valar. Without that, all these stories never overcome evil. I think you really need that ending. That and the special effects to show the Wrath of the Lord of the West, now that is a visual battle I would like to see atempted.
Show, your point on tragedy is all too apt. I for one, have difficulty watching or reading tragedies. There is enough of that in Real Life. I will never watch Sophies Choice again. And Pans Labyrinth, one of my favorite films, I can only watch it while telling myself that the fantasy part is more real than the reality the young girl escapes from. As to Tolkiens works, it would take dozens of fils to do it justice.

Barrel the Pony, I concur that Christopher Tolkien shold allow the material to be used, but it is not his fault. Saul Zaentz can't get along with anyone. He screwed Ralph Bakshi, then he and New Line screwed Christopher Tolkien.

Peace
Gandalfs Beard
I agree with Show. I don't think the general public would be ready for some of the stuff in the story of Turin. But I think it would be AMAZING to see a movie about Beren and Luthien. If you were to put the whole book of the Silmarillion into movies i think you might need one for every tale. Well probly not every one some of the stories are linked but it would take ALOT of movies to do it. I would watch them all though!! lol
What you'd have to do is release Beren and Luthien FIRST. Everyone likes a love story. And it comes first chronologically, so it would act as the one that get's everyone's attention. Then people would go see Turin since B&L was so good, and they may not like it as much. But then Gondolin comes out, and it's absolutely amazing. So Turin would be the weak one of the three, but it would be standing in between two huge pillars, so it wouldn't be a big prob. That's how I see it anyways.
That actually makes alot of sense. Never thought of it that way before!
So, Beren, you said in your member introduction that you are most familiar with/conversant with the Silmarillion and less so with the trilogy. That just amazes me. I think that the Silmarillion is SO much harder to read, because it is so general and abstract, especially in the beginning. The reader needs to put so much more into it, making connections, filling in the colors and details, imagining what the sketchy descriptions of this or that culture would imply (what would an elf be like, what would a dwarf be like, what would a man be like, what would a balrog or a Shelob thingie be like).

I am about halfway through reading it, for the first time in earnest, right now (and I don't want to say how old I am). And I have to force myself to SIT and be QUIET and CONCENTRATE, and there can't be any other people around making noise or poking me or asking me for stuff. I bought myself the newish hardcover edition of it, illustrated by Ted Nasmith, as a motivator and a help to reading it, because it has been a goal for so long. It's really awesome now, but this comes after years of trying, and reading a few pages, and flipping through and trying to get a toe-hold and failing.

I read the Hobbit first, and then the Lord of the Rings, and so I have come to know about these higher things (like Numinor) the way the hobbits did: first through hints and tales and brief bits of history gained by meeting and talking to different people on the journeys with Bilbo and Frodo. And I pretty much take the approach of Pippin, who could have gotten the information before, if he had listened more closely to Uncle Bilbo's stories, but he didn't. The DEPTH (as Tolkien calls it) of knowing that there is history behind this world and this current story (that the hobbits are in) is one thing that makes it so magical. That the hobbits stumble upon some bit of ruin and wonder "What happened here?" or "Who built this? and What was it for?" You know, and then Aragorn or Gandalf will get a far-off look and say a few sentences about it, and maybe they will remember that Bilbo made a rhyme about it or they remember seeing it somewhere on a map in Uncle Bilbo's hobbit hole, but they hadn't paid attention at the time. That's just wonderful, and I don't know of any other stories that have quite that masterful of a level of depth and reality to them. Harry Potter does a pretty good job with Harry being raised in total ignorance by muggles and having to learn things, and having the Hogwarts teachers sometimes be quite stingey with information, and then Harry has to get a lot of his information from Ron or the Weasley twins or from some other less-than-totally reliable or knowledgeable source. And Harry doesn't have the patience to go look things up or devour his history books like Hermione, so we don't get to know about things through those means either. But to get that level of depth, and then to pull off the conceit of having main characters (and hence the reader) learn things gradually and in pieces and often in muddled versions, is very rare.

But I guess Tolkien himself started by writing the Silmarillion material, so it is possible to begin with just that. So what did you do, Beren, read all of the books and then read the SIlmarillion in more depth? I would imagine that this would require a lot of imagination on your part. One thing I do NOT like about the Silmarillion is that it does not have that same sense of mystery and depth, because we get the omniscient view of the big picture. And when the Peter Jackson team made the movies, they sacrificed a lot of this sense of depth by putting everything in correct chronological order and telling us the background story of the ring in the opening sequence.

I can't imagine the Silmarillion stories standing alone very well in a film because they are supposed to feel so remote. And they don't have the depth because you get the Valar's-eye view and you get to start from the beginning. So you miss out on the sense of mystery and depth. How are you able to relate to those stories more than the material in the trilogy??!! Hmm...well, okay, really most Bible stories and myths are about like the Silmarillion, and people have made movies and musicals about them, taking very short sketchy original material and filling in gobs, putting flesh and dressing on the bones. But, whew! what a lot of interpretation is required. The reader has to be a writer. Maybe Tolkien would say a sub-sub-creator, having to create in his imagination what the sub-creator only hinted at in the story.
Wow, there's a lot to respond to. I'll just go through paragraph by paragraph.

1. I think I like the Silmarillion better because it is the origin. I absolutely love the first chapter, and sometimes will just get it out and read it to myself. It is utterly beautiful. I am very interested in beginnings and histories. I am 17, and homeschooled, and take pleasure from reading the hardest stuff possible <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />

2. Congrats!! I wish you well. One thing that helped me a LOT when I read the Silmarillion is this: I got the tape version from my library and read it along with the tapes. Make sure you don't get an abridged one. It makes it go so much faster and easier. You don't have to spend 2 hours on a half-page because of pronunciations and figuring out who is who. The narrator doesn't stumble on names, so you can learn to say them like he says them. Because of this, I can fluently speak everyone's name in the Silmarillion. Then you can also spend more energy on paying attention to the actual story. It makes it a lot more enjoyable.

3. You have an interesting point here. You like having backstory in a story, and the reader not necessarily knowing what the backstory is. But just the fact of it being there helps. With me, I also love backstory, but I want to KNOW the backstory. I cannot sit by and just let the little references pass by. I have to know every bit that exists in the history of the world I'm in when I read a story.

4. Let me see...what DID I do? lol...If I remember right, my mom read me The Hobbit when I was little, but I never went beyond that for a while. When FOTR came out in theaters, I was too young to go see it. My dad and bro told me it was based on a book written by the same guy who wrote the Hobbit. So, since I couldn't see the movie, I decided to read the book in the meantime. Haha, that took a LONG time. I think it took about a year (me being about 9 or 10). Of course, much of it went over my head, and I remember skipping a lot of the chapter "Elrond's Council." :oops: When I finished that, I was kinda overwhelmed. I didn't want to read any for a while. Then, I asked my mom if I could see the movie. She said no, and so I looked on our bookshelf for more books by Tolkien. I found the Silmarillion, and my bro said it was very hard to get through. So I decided not to read it just then. After that, I just waited a few years until I was 14, and I saw FOTR. In the year after that, I saw TTT and ROTK, and also read the Silmarillion (with the tapes). The movies kind of spurred a new longing for Tolkien in me, so I began looking for Tolkien books at the library. I found a book called "The War of the Jewels." It looked really cool, so I got it. I then looked inside of it, and realized it was 11th in a 12-part series. I was like, "woah. This is huge. It'll take me forever." (I imagine Christopher Tolkien said the same thing when he started out on his journey of writing the beast.) But I set myself to reading the whole series. I began looking up the books at the library, and it only had two others. So I decided to buy them. Here is the full list:
I. The Book of Lost Tales, Part 1
II. The Book of Lost Tales, Part 2
III. The Lays of Beleriand
IV. The Shaping of Middle-Earth
V. The Lost Road and Other Writings
VI. The Return of the Shadow
VII. The Treason of Isengard
VIII. The War of the Ring
IX. Sauron Defeated
X. Morgoth's Ring
XI. The War of the Jewels
XII. The Peoples of Middle-Earth
I am currently almost done with #7 "The Treason of Isengard." I own every one of them, and have a whole shelf now devoted to Tolkien. Anyways, that's my "Tolkien testimony."

5. I see your point. But there are those out there, like me, who want to see all the backstory. They are hungry for Tolkien films. So if someone made films out of the whole Silmarillion, their hunger would be, at least temporarily, satisfied. But if someone only makes the "big three" mentioned in previous posts, then there is still a HUGE amount of "unknown" backstory and mystery. I think it would be the ideal money-maker to make the big three, and not any others. But as a Tolkien nut myself, I would go to see any movie taken from the Silmarillion.
Holy Frijoles (sp?) (Free hole ayez) You are 17?

Well, okay. I guess I was that age when I read the LOTR. But still. You have the patience to read the Silmarillion and all of Tolkien's notes and rough drafts? Well, it shows that you have good taste that you continue to look for Tolkien stuff, because there really is no one like him.

I guess I should have home schooled my kids. And I should have restricted their television and movie exposure. I would have killed them if I had tried to home school them, though. I really would have been a child abuser. But I envy when I hear about how literary a lot of home-schooled kids are. I keep poking the Tolkien and Narnia books at them, saying, "You really should try these." "Really." "Try them." It's total "I do not like green eggs and ham." "Would you like them read to you?" "Would you like them in a shoe?" "Would you like the radio play?" "Try it, kids, it's awesome...hey." It's like they think the books are poison because I like them so much. Our neighbor, who is older than our girls, refused to read the LOTR, even though her parents and I KNEW she would love it. Then one day she broke her shoulder, and was stuck being sedentary for a long time. Her dad called me and asked if she could borrow my copy of LOTR. He said, "When you give it to her, don't act excited. Just be flat. We don't want to jinx this." So I did, and I did not ask her how she was liking it or anything. Pretty soon she became a Tolkien NUT. Dressed up as Legolas for Halloween (long blonde hair...). Maybe my kids need to become disabled temporarily.

I didn't have the patience, when I was your age, to read everything you are reading. I just wanted to know about Frodo and Sam and when I got into the second two books I got really impatient and started just skimming all of the songs and poems and battle scenes. "Woop. Here's another scene with Theoden's army...blah blah blah....What is happening with Frodo???!!!" Stayed up late into the night....flashlight under the covers....went to school bleary-eyed for a week.

Gotta go. Fun hearing about your reading experience.
haha, how old did you think I was? Yes, I'm 17. I am also constantly amazed that I'm crazy enough to read all that I do. And I used to read a lot more, but new things have come up in the past year, like making movies. I am an indie movie director, and the movie I'm working on right now takes a lot of time out of my schedule. I'm seeing it as healthy not to read so much, but it also is aggravating how long it takes to get through a book.

Oh, don't worry, the first time I read LOTR, I also skipped all the poems and stuff. So now I'm kinda catching up, I guess. Ahh, how I've changed. Now I really like poetry. In fact, "The Lays of Beleriand" was one of my favorite books. It has "The Lay of The Children of Hurin" and "The Lay of Leithian" in it. Those two stories in poetry form are just beautiful. Thick, but beautiful. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />
Beren--
Well, I thought you were well into adulthood. Does that insult any of the younger people on this discussion? You express yourself well...you're articulate...you make good points and observations. I taught a lower-level college course for awhile and short papers were required. It was a big eye-opener for me. I thought, "Whew! All those years as an undergrad and now as a graduate student, I have sweated out my papers SO MUCH, and now finally I see a real random sampling of what the larger crowd writes. If I had known this I would have relaxed more." Also, I'm impressed as hell that you know how to put a nice little picture logo thing near your name. And it's even something that looks elf-y. Well, and you know the SILMARILLION!! I just can't believe that. But yeah, I had a Sunday school student once, middle-school-aged, who had read the Silmarillion. I couldn't believe that either. And I kept trying to get him to say brilliant things in class, because you KNOW he must be thinkig deep thoughts habitually, but he was really shy.
Beren, I, like Otto's World, am astounded by the depth of your knowledge at your age. But I really shouldn't be. At your age, I like you, was a voracious reader. I had begun with the Hobbit as a child, graduated to TLOTR in my 'tweens and was tackling the Silmarillion in High School. I have to say though, my feelings about the whole thing are a bit between Otto's World and your own. Like you, I am an Origin and History Nut, but like Otto's World I found it a bit of a slog and I am sorry to say, other than The Book of Lost Tales, I have read little else Tolkien. But I am attempting now to make up for lost time.

Happy Holidays
[b:bbyrr94j]Gandalfs Beard[/b:bbyrr94j]
ahh, but the Books of Lost Tales are some of the best of the whole "History of Middle-Earth" series.
I guess the Silmarillion has gone age and reading style approch. To fill my part of the void, I'm 25, read the Hobbit in grade school, LOTR in High School. First year of College when the movies were starting to come out I picked up the Silmarillion.

For Otto, I like Beren's idea of reading along with the tape. I didn't get that chance but had some of the same trouble reading it. I found that the standard "skip the poems and skim a chapter or two" on your first read through is nice. Also, try to print out or xerox the family trees that Tolkien included. And make little notes about who is related to who, and who hates who. I can not begin to guess how many times I lost track of who was brothers/sons/cousins/friends/enemies.

After you're done wait a couple months, then read it all over again. Now that the skim version gave you a kind of general view of the world and timeline, you can enjoy and keep up with the story while you read it.

As for other Tolkien, Christopher recently published a novel size version of the Children of Hurien, which is the Turin Turumbar story. If you can, read the Silmarillion version first and then read the novel. It really lets you enjoy all the deeper story and detail of the full novel version.

@ Beren. Your reading list you posted. VI, VII, VIII, IX. The return of the Shadow through Sauron Defeated, Isn't that just the Lord of the Rings? That's why I never bought them. Or are they the same story from another view? The war of the Jewels I thought was the story of Fenor's sons trying to recover the Silmarils and the effects of the Doom of Mandos. I have the books of Lost Tales, never did finish them, they were sort of rough draftish and time just never allowed me to get fully going. Now I have a 7 month old baby and time is a luxuary I don't often get to enjoy anymore. What are some of the rest of that listing, I'm curious.

For Otto I think? Whoever it was that said they enjoyed the similarity and depth of Tolkien to real myths and legends. He took alot of inspiration from actual myths and legend to try and create a mythology for England, seeing as much of England's early myths perished in the Norman invasions. Sindarian (Elvish) is even based on the Finish language. Many similarities can be seen between Norse mythology and great Finish epic called Kalevallah, I think, I may have the spelling wrong, but I'm close.

As to Peter Jackson's prolouge for LOTR, I loved every second of it. My friends who saw FotR with me were excited (Midnight, opening night), but I was the only one who had actually read the book. They knew this, and knew just how much I had loved and knew the stories. I thought for certain I would be answering questions about who's who and what's what because movies just never seem to cover details well. That prolouge set up non-readers so well to start the movies that I was truley pleased. Another short story from that night is Boromirs death. A good example of how well PJ did the movie for both readers and non. When the first arrow struck him my friend next to me kind of cried out. An "Oh No!" response. While next to him you have me, I know he dies, I know he dies by orc arrows. I also know he can handle more than one. And I said as much, "Get up you son of @$#%^, I know you can take more than one!"
[quote="Show":2ryxvcp5]@ Beren. Your reading list you posted. VI, VII, VIII, IX. The return of the Shadow through Sauron Defeated, Isn't that just the Lord of the Rings? That's why I never bought them. Or are they the same story from another view? The war of the Jewels I thought was the story of Fenor's sons trying to recover the Silmarils and the effects of the Doom of Mandos. I have the books of Lost Tales, never did finish them, they were sort of rough draftish and time just never allowed me to get fully going. Now I have a 7 month old baby and time is a luxuary I don't often get to enjoy anymore. What are some of the rest of that listing, I'm curious.[/quote:2ryxvcp5]

VI, VII, VIII, and IX aren't exactly just "LOTR." They are the History of the Lord of the Rings. In other words, it's the journey that Tolkien went through writing LOTR. All the drafts, initial ideas, editing, etc. It's all in there. It gives you a deeper appreciation for Tolkien's work.

The others are mainly the same thing only with the Silmarillion. I can hardly remember them, though, lol. I know Lays was the two poems, (Turin and Beren and Luthien) and "The Lost Road" was a book he tried to write that he never finished. Tolkien and Lewis decided that Lewis would write about space-travel (his space-trilogy) and Tolkien would write about time travel (this unpublished and unfinished work.) It's very good.

btw, if you want to buy any of these cheaply, just go to www.half.ebay.com. They have some cheap books there.
Thank you for the halfebay.com pointer, Beren. It's amazing what valuable info comes out while people are writing little asides speaking of different topics.

Show, now that you have a tiny one, it is a good time to take advantage of all of the wonderful audio versions of books that are available. You know how your attention is now constantly divided? Always being interrupted? Never able to concentrate as sharply or focusedly as you could before, but yet the baby tasks are not enough to keep your mind entertained enough? Now is as good a time as any for me to plug an audioversion of [u:2lvsomc4]The Farmer Giles of Ham [/u:2lvsomc4]and [u:2lvsomc4]Leaf by Niggle [/u:2lvsomc4]and the [u:2lvsomc4]Smith of Wooton Major[/u:2lvsomc4]. Derek Jacobi does a fabulous job.

Thank you, Beren, for explaining what [u:2lvsomc4]The Lost Road [/u:2lvsomc4]deals with. I didn't realize that this was the project that Tolkien was working on as a kind of co-writer exercise with C. S. Lewis. I got a book by Verlyn Flieger called [u:2lvsomc4]A Question of Time [/u:2lvsomc4](which I quickly set aside for later because it refers so much to [u:2lvsomc4]The Lost Road[/u:2lvsomc4], which I have not read). The reason why I got the [u:2lvsomc4]Question of Time [/u:2lvsomc4]book was because I so admired Flieger's book [u:2lvsomc4]Splintered Light: Logos and Language in Tolkien's World[/u:2lvsomc4]. [u:2lvsomc4]Splintered Light [/u:2lvsomc4]is regarded as Flieger's best book, and I recommend it to you, Beren, because you love the [u:2lvsomc4]Silmarillion[/u:2lvsomc4], and because I'm guessing that you went on to read all of those History of the Ring books--enduring the tedium of reading rough drafts of Tolkien that you've already read when you might be reading other books on the sci fi shelves--because you recognize something special about Tolkien that you love and want more of and which you aren't finding in rich abundance elsewhere.

I liked [u:2lvsomc4]Splintered Light [/u:2lvsomc4]a lot first, because I thought that, reading this, for the first time, I might be able to get a toe-hold into [u:2lvsomc4]The Silmarillion[/u:2lvsomc4]. And...whoa...now that I'm flipping through my copy to better describe it to you, I see that THIS is the book that talks about Beowulf and Tolkien's sympathy with the pagan who has no assurance of a heaven or an afterlife (which I mentioned in another posting in the Fairy-Stories thread). Oooo....oooo....listen to this.

[quote:2lvsomc4]The effect of the poem...comes from an understanding of the inevitability of Beowulf's final defeat. The poet has taken care that there should be no suspense or uncertainty whatever about the outcome. Like all heroes, indeed like all humanity, Beowulf is going to die. [i:2lvsomc4]"He is a man," [/i:2lvsomc4]says Tolkien, [i:2lvsomc4]"and that for him and for many is sufficient tragedy."[/i:2lvsomc4] A stark statement, and he follows it with one even more bleak: [i:2lvsomc4]"life is transitory: light and life together hasten away"[/i:2lvsomc4] ... Like humanity itself, light is perishable, finally to be overcome by the dark. The heroes, those "mighy men upon earth," with courage (not hope or faith) as their stay, must leave the precarius little circle of light to go out into the darkness, to battle with the embodiments of that darkness--the monsters--and ultimately to lose. Heroism in the face of inevitable defeat is the theme of the poem. [/quote:2lvsomc4]
Ooo, wow. This book fits well with the discussion thread about Fairy-Stories. Must use it and share more there.

Anyway, Beren, Flieger talks a lot also about Owen Barfield's influence (another Inkling) on Tolkien's thinking--his ideas about language in creating one's reality. "Logos" meaning "Ideas" with a capital "I" and how they are carried by language. You notice how brilliant Tolkien is about creating feelings or flavors just by the way different characters talk? Gollum has his own weird way of speaking, and Sam has his, and Eomer sounds completely different, and Denethor is still different? And all are a different slice or splinter or facet of Illuvatar's light.

Sorry, I'm not being very helpful here. I want to recommend the book to you, Beren. Maybe best to go to Amazon and look it up and read some of the better reviews of the book to get an idea of what it is. Oh hey, I'll save you a trip...or persuade you further to take that trip:
[quote:2lvsomc4]The original 1983 edition, long hard to find, was one of the first books to discuss The Silmarillion in detail, and one of the most insightful: it showed Tolkien applying to his mythology Owen Barfield's principles of the deep relationship between language and the nature of reality, and using fragmented light as a metaphorical depiction of fragmented language. [/quote:2lvsomc4]
[quote:2lvsomc4]Though I had always held the belief that God, myth, and language are interconnected ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"Wink Smilie I had never fully grasped the impact and full meaning of that until I read this book.[/quote:2lvsomc4]
[quote:2lvsomc4]"C.S. Lewis's comment that Tolkien `had been inside langugae' was thus no figure of speech, but the literal truth. He had been inside the word, had experienced its power and seen with its perception. Others who knew Tolkien came to much the same conclusion. Simonne d'Ardenne, one of Tolkien's Oxford students and herself a philologist, found antoher way to put it...Mlle. d'Ardenne recalled saying to him once, apropos his work: `You broke the veil, didn't you, and passed through?' and she adds that he `readily admitted' having done so." [p. 9]

Logos - as living Word, in which one may get, may live and move and have one's being - connects Tolkien with Barfield as nothing else will. That, though, means one might need to read Barfield too. Flieger brings Tolkien's Silmarillion to life; she brings Tolkien to life; she points one to both Tolkien's and Barfield's philological and philosophical thought and work. Most of all, she gets one as near to being `inside language' - inside Logos - as one has reason to hope, at least by individual effort alone. In that regard, Splintered Light is worth far more than its price just for the above quoted passage alone.[/quote:2lvsomc4]

Sorry, once again, so rude of me, putting up so much and not being very clear about it. (whispering: Really, Beren...no kidding...just trust me....get this book for yourself...like maybe from ebay half-price books.)
I've looked at it, and it looks very interesting...exciting even. But, at the moment, I don't have much money to spare...you should have told me about it before Christmas, so I could have asked for it! <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' /> Anyways, thanks for the reference. I'm sure it'll someday end up on my Tolkien shelf <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />.
Oh, that's okay. I'll copy out large portions of it in this forum. (Secretly I'm an agent working for the booksellers, and I will continue to try to get you to get the book--or to get your parents to get it for you.) :ugeek:
Yeah, I already saw through that. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />
Assuming that C. Tolkien ends his lawsuits...or dies... what about a movie of the Akellabeth? The rise and fall of Numenor?
Figure you've got a bit too much time frame for a single movie. Maybe just start out with a prolouge that outlines the creation and eventual changes in mood up to Ar-Pharazon's reign. Then make a movie of the restraint of Sauron, followed by his usurption of control in numenor. Ar-Pharazon's planned assult upon Valinor, and the subsequent destruction of Numenor. Make sure to show the faithful's efforts to remain friends with the elves. The gifting the palatir, and the rescue of a sapling of the white tree. It would even make for a great set up for a sequal, [i:2np6mgxo]The Last Alliance[/i:2np6mgxo].
I would pay money to see those in theater. And with a strong prolouge like LotR had, I can see it really working.
Thoughts?
Also, I guess reference to Sauron setting aside his ring in Barad Dur should be mentioned while he was takin into captivity by the Numenorians.
To add, I think this movie would be a wonderful backstory for just how good Sauron was at being evil. His time fooling the Elves of Hollin into accepting him and his teachings with craftsmanship (creation of the rings) and his usurption and corroption of Numenor. Sauron the Deciever indeed.
Indeed, I would also pay big bucks to see that in theaters. But I think the big three should be introduced first. I think they are more popular and well-known than the story of the Numenorians. It would be bad for a franchise to start off on a weaker beat. I would say, no matter what, start with Beren and Luthien. The biggest unknown would be whether the franchise could hold on through a possible bad showing for Turin, and go ahead and make Gondolin. I think it'd be much like the Narnia franchise. LWW did VERY well, then Prince Caspian was successful, but an overall letdown. So now Disney has lost interest and jumped ship. VDT is very much in jeopardy. But if they can make it, I predict it'll do much better than PC. Same with Turin and Gondolin. If the franchise can make it through Turin and into Gondolin, there will be a very strong base for more films (like Numenor).
I will agree and disagree Beren. I see your point with going with the Big Three. But for viewing audiences, think of this. They have already met Numenorians. Their remenents are a huge part of LotR. You have Aragorn, Gondor, Arnor, Weathertop, Hints at the Last Alliance, all sorts of Numenor and Westernesse references. Beren & Luthien get a pat on the back at Weathertop with Aragorn singing about it. That and

Interesting thought on the big three. Do you also have to show the fall of Doriath? When Gondolin falls the viewing audience will have known about Doriath and may wonder why they never help. Not knowing that Doriath has fallen already due to the Curse of Mandos coming to call on Thingol.

Turin could go well, I think in movie form we would see lots more of Glaurung [i:13gmmw57](I mean the dragon, I forget which was the sword and which was the dragon, darn Tolkien and his names)[/i:13gmmw57]. Everyone loves dragons, that and the destruction of Nargothrond alone might be able to carry it.
I love the LOTR book and the movies, and I think they did a splendid fabulous admirable job....BUT personally I would have liked more sitting around and telling stories or looking around and enjoying the sights of Imladris (dang, brain cramp. can't remember the regular name of Elrond's little realm) and having fun with the hobbits in their own territory. I thought there was way too much valuable screen time/audience attention span limited time on fights and orc shenannigens. Like Sam, I wanted to "go and see elves and all." But this is just my personal preference, and I am probably in the minority.

One reason people wanted to see LOTR brought to the screen was to be able to visualize the vastness of the battles and the greatness of the vistas (scenery, architecture). When you all envision The Tale of the Ring being brought to the screen, do you think it could resemble the LOTR, or will the movies be much more action, visually oriented? Because the screenwriters will have almost no dialog whatsoever to draw on from Tolkien. So will you mostly look forward to seeing the buildings and the towns and the scale of them and the costumes and the ships and the battles and the ominousness of Melchor-sized monsters? In other words, are you most interested in what the props and set departments will do with the material? Because I do not envy any actors who would be in these movies, nor the writers trying to come up with good lines for them to say. The prologue of the LOTR worked well partly because it was mostly narrated and the actors said very little.
I love the LOTR book and the movies, and I think they did a splendid fabulous admirable job....BUT personally I would have liked more sitting around and telling stories or looking around and enjoying the sights of Imladris (dang, brain cramp. can't remember the regular name of Elrond's little realm) and having fun with the hobbits in their own territory. I thought there was way too much valuable screen time/audience attention span limited time on fights and orc shenannigens. Like Sam, I wanted to "go and see elves and all." But this is just my personal preference, and I am probably in the minority.

One reason people wanted to see LOTR brought to the screen was to be able to visualize the vastness of the battles and the greatness of the vistas (scenery, architecture). When you all envision The Tale of the Ring being brought to the screen, do you think it could resemble the LOTR, or will the movies be much more action, visually oriented? Because the screenwriters will have almost no dialog whatsoever to draw on from Tolkien. So will you mostly look forward to seeing the buildings and the towns and the scale of them and the costumes and the ships and the battles and the ominousness of Melchor-sized monsters? In other words, are you most interested in what the props and set departments will do with the material? Because I do not envy any actors who would be in these movies, nor the writers trying to come up with good lines for them to say. The prologue of the LOTR worked well partly because it was mostly narrated and the actors said very little.
For me, a broader colour pallette is always appreciated. Magnificent landscapes, more Magic and Mystery. And of course, Dragons. A little less Ugly "Faerie" folk and a little more Fair "Faerie" folk. Over all the films achieved a nice balance. But there was always a palpable sense of relief after the claustraphobic darkness of the mines, or the oppressive dreary Greys of the Jagged mountainous and wet region before Sam, Frodo and Gollum reach the marshes (sorry, brain freeze, can't remember the name). But of course that's the effect Jackson wanted to achieve. Really, any of the stories from the Silmarillion you can do that with would entice moviegoers. But for me, I prefer the less depressing ones.

[b:3e6s46mr]Gandalfs Beard[/b:3e6s46mr]
[quote="Show":1w97vcc1]I will agree and disagree Beren. I see your point with going with the Big Three. But for viewing audiences, think of this. They have already met Numenorians. Their remenents are a huge part of LotR. You have Aragorn, Gondor, Arnor, Weathertop, Hints at the Last Alliance, all sorts of Numenor and Westernesse references. Beren & Luthien get a pat on the back at Weathertop with Aragorn singing about it.[/quote:1w97vcc1]

You are right here, but from my point of view, when I read and saw LOTR, I had no clue about Numenor. All I knew was that it was an island that was sunk by the gods (like Atlantis.) But I knew about Beren and Luthien. Or, at least, I knew that the Aragorn-Arwen relationship was kind of a "copy" of the relationship between Beren and Luthien. And I knew that Arwen was descended from Luthien. Even when I read the Silmarillion, I didn't pay much attention to Numenor. Or at least not as much attention as I gave Beren and Luthien. Maybe I'm just the romantic type <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' /> It just seems like Beren and Luthien would sell better than Numenor. Probably being PG-13, it wouldn't have to appeal to the very young, just teenagers and up. And teenagers are all into love and all that (or at least, what they (or should I say "we?"Wink Smilie [i:1w97vcc1]think[/i:1w97vcc1] is love). And grown-up couples will watch it to remember their younger days as "lovers" or to fantasize about what they wanted their relationship to be like. Ok, maybe I'm getting too deep here. The point is, I think a love story from Tolkien (including the action and adventure and acts of courage) would be very appealing to the general audience. Numenor is just history. It is where the Gondorian people came from. It just [u:1w97vcc1]sounds[/u:1w97vcc1] dry. Of course, it is FAR from dry, but it sounds much dryer than a love story.
Beren, the Luthien/Beren story IS a good one by itself to do for a film. Think of all of the drama! There's a bit of Rapunzel in it, shape-shifting, heroic loyalty, confronting the baddest of the bad, doomed love, Romeo & Juliet style love w/ parental disapproval and the mutual death deal, impossible odds....When I read that part I was sitting by a lake and I got totally transported. Couldn't stop reading. Time stood still. When I raised my head from the book and looked around after reading that story it was like waking up from a dream. Doesn't get much more thrilling than that.

The story of Numenor is an epic, yes? It's the story of the Numenorians' version of the Fall with a capital "F." It's like the Garden of Eden or Satan and his followers' fall after their War in Heaven. A filmmaker could get to portray what an ideally civilized race of man would look like. Like the golden days of Arthur and his round table, these people would be what we all dream of being. Then the drama of Pride and the Fall. Then the latter part of the movie would basically be like Titanic. Eeeew. Death by water, portrayed in all of its varieties on a large and glorious scale. Noah's ark made into a horror movie. But yeah, the moviemaker would probably have to invent a lot more stuff to fill in what is not described in Tolkien. But it's a chance to draw on some very fundamental themes.
You know, It's been waaaay too long for me. I Have to dig up my copy (or go to the library) and reread the Silmarillion and Book of Lost tales. Maybe then I can start on all the stuff I haven't read :lol: .

[b:38m7zand]Gandalfs Beard[/b:38m7zand]
First my feeling is that Peter Jackson did a stunning job doing a "treatment" of Lord of the Rings. Its not the whole story...nor was it meant to be. You can only really do so much in film, and was so much that was left out. Glorfindel, Tom Bombadil..et al. Its an 'adaptation'. Just like the cartoons of the 70s and the Bakshi film.

What would be a good idea might be, not on the big screen but the small one.

"tales from middle earth".

There are a number of stories that you could tell, and because of the epoch type of stories, you could tell stories from any era.

Imagine if you had a 5 year arc (like Babylon5). With a few movies thrown in for good measure. Imagine the treatments that could be given to the stories.

Now I know that purists are squirming with this suggestion, but as I suggested its about "adapting" not nesseccarily "regurgitating". I believe that such an endevour is more in the spirt of Tolkien anyway.

Tolkien was creating a mythology, and in essence thats what this will do. Is really so bad if it is duetrocannonical?
Different media by necessity require different artistic choices when rendering adaptations. Things such as time constraints, finances, live action, animation, small screen, large screen, playing to an audience unfamiliar with the source material, clarifying narrative, conveying character development in a convincing story arc (which may or may not have been done in the original source material), and other factors better known to directors, are all factors involved in choosing what to leave in, take out or add to any story being adapted.

A director has to make these artistic choices. While it's perfectly reasonable to debate the merits of certain changes vs others, it is less reasonable to challenge the necessity for making such changes.

The most important thing in any adaptation is maintaining the integrity of the key story-lines, and staying true to the Spirit of the original material, if not the letter of it. Some films fail due to butchering too much of the original themes, plots, and characterizations.

I think PJ's version of LotR is brilliant <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> . We were lucky to get a version as faithful as his :mrgreen: .

[b:2oohk3p2]GB[/b:2oohk3p2]
Are you saying then, anaclagon, that the point of adaptation is not to give an accurate representation of the original story, just in a different media with some changes made to facilitate this; but is in fact to make a story that may or may not show similarities to the original? If so, I have two questions.

[list:2jvf9xmx]How does one determine to what extent you change the story? Why might it be okay to cut X (say, Tom Bombadil) but not Y (say, the Battle of the Hornburg)?
What is the spirit of Tolkien and how does changing Tolkien's story/stories remain in that spirit?[/list:u:2jvf9xmx]

I'm honestly wondering <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' /> ; I've seen arguments like this before but never much elaboration.
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":2ccmw29y]While it's perfectly reasonable to debate the merits of certain changes vs others, it is less reasonable to challenge the necessity for making such changes.[/quote:2ccmw29y]

I'm curious as to how this is relevant, as I have never claimed that no changed need be made. I don't think that changing the fundamentals of characters (cases in point include Aragorn, Faramir, and Denethor) or the plot (bloating the Battle of the Hornburg into the climax of [i:2ccmw29y]TTT[/i:2ccmw29y], cutting the "essential" Scouring of the Shire) are necessary however, because they [i:2ccmw29y]change the story that is supposedly being adapted[/i:2ccmw29y]. Adaptation does not necessitate changing the story since it is about telling that same story in a different medium.

[quote:2ccmw29y]The most important thing in any adaptation is maintaining the integrity of the key story-lines, and staying true to the Spirit of the original material, if not the letter of it. Some films fail due to butchering too much of the original themes, plots, and characterizations.[/quote:2ccmw29y]

Please explain how on earth something as vague and subjective as "spirit" can possibly be used as a guide for adaptation (see my last post). While no one is saying that every last detail must be replicated exactly, the larger story is made up of smaller parts (characters, portions of the plot, etc.), and if they are changed the story is changed.

[quote:2ccmw29y]I think PJ's version of LotR is brilliant <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> . We were lucky to get a version as faithful as his :mrgreen: .[/quote:2ccmw29y]

I agree it was brilliant if we were talking solely about the films as cinema, but since we're considering them as adaptations I have to disagree. How can the [url=http://eldorion.wordpress.com/tolkienpurism/:2ccmw29y]numerous changes[/url:2ccmw29y] (the first three essays linked from there are relevant but there's far too much to briefly summarize) not make the films unfaithful? :?
I'm sorry, I'm not sure how this topic got derailed :oops: . I'm going to post my reply on the "What You Would Change..." thread.

[b:2u7ejyta]GB[/b:2u7ejyta]
Good idea, GB. <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' />
Too many.

I'm satisfied with the books.
[quote="demonslyr":h4di5ktg]I'm satisfied with the books.[/quote:h4di5ktg]

Hear, hear! I might throw in a few paintings and drawings every now and then or listen to music while reading, but that's more than enough for me. <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' />
I'm not really into the idea of a movie telling about the forging of the rings of power and the lead-up to the War of the Last Alliance. Mainly because the full tale covers the better part of an Age of Middle-Earth. To put my reservations into context, LOTR opens up with Bilbo's "one gross" birthday/leave-taking party in TA 3001, then immediately and quickly progresses to 3018, with a passing note that Gandalf had stopped visiting in 3009. The bulk of the story runs from the 9th month of 3018 to the 10th month of 3019, and finishes in year 1 of the Fourth Age, a year later.

The tale of the rings of power begins with Sauron's attempt to ingratiate himself with the Elves in the 13th century of the Second Age. He finally gets into Ost-en-Edhil in the 14th century, he and Celebrimbor forge the rings i the 16th century, and then Sauron completes the One Ring at the end of that century, letting his ambitions become known. the Dark Lord finally moves on the Elves in the middle of the first half of the 17th century, the Numenorians make their big debut to help drive him out of Eriador, and Sauron goes back to Mordor in a huff. The Numenorians begin to feel the effects of corruption in the 21st century, the Ringwraiths appear in the 23rd century, but nothing very "big" happens until the 31st century, when Ar-Pharazon decides to arrange a showdown with the Dark Lord. The Downfall of Numenor follows, with Elendil & sons escaping to Middle-Earth later that same century. Sauron returns to Mordor and then feels strong enough to take on the Dunedain and their Elven allies 100 years later, to close out the Second Age where the FOTR movie gets under way.

So the tale of the rings spans nearly 18 centuries, with key events vastly removed in time! Trying to incorporate that passage of time into a cinematic format is difficult, even with the use of a narrarator or the old fashioned screen captions. Elrond's summary of the period at the Council meeting takes most of the morning to relate! So I think it's best to leave the back history as, well, back history, and acknowledge the past events when they become relevant to "current events" in Middle-Earth.
I think that we shouldn't worry about this. Instead, Kate Madison's effort, Born of Hope shows the way. A series of short. but enjoyable movies that can be strung together to make the whole. Sure, you can see it's not a 'cast of thousands', nor had millions spent on it, but I think that with a little backing it is definitely the way to go. A superb effort, by a true enthusiast, which makes even just that little excerpt of the story exciting and inspires you to want to see more.