Why there's no "Silmarillion" movie until 2043

I found a couple of interviews which might shed some light over this altogether...

First off, from Christopher Tolkien's interview from Le Monde:

Quote:

---

Invited to meet Peter Jackson, the Tolkien family preferred not to. Why? "They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully. "And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film."

This divorce has been systematically driven by the logic of Hollywood. "Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time," Christopher Tolkien observes sadly. "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away."

---

Also, Philippa Boyens' interview from Movieline:

Quote:

---

By the end of the interview, she had us referring to Tolkien as Professor too, as she discussed the changes and adaptations she and her writing partners made to the text, the sad story of Balin the Dwarf, why fans should be very, very excited for 2043, when the copyright runs out on Tolkien's Middle-Earth compendium, The Silmarillion, and more.

...

Q: I have some good news for you. I looked, on the schedule. There's no movie coming out December 2043.

A: (Intense laughter)

Q: Don't pretend you don’t know where I'm going –

A: I'll be 80-something. I'll be 80 and somebody else will be doing it. That was really hard I have to say, that I couldn't go back there. [There are] extraordinary pieces of writing, extraordinary pieces of the puzzle in The Silmarillion. And we couldn't go near it. I haven't read it for 25 years. I just can't afford to have it in my head because we don't have any of the rights. And also it will just break my heart. I had to let it go.

---

My reaction? To be honest, relieved. I already have my own images of the book that I want to keep.

Hasn't read Silmarillion for 25 years and won't? That explains if some changes in the movies are wrong - how can you fully understand Tolkien's stories, if you don't understand Silmarillion? This makes Philippa as a questionable "Tolkien expert" in my eyes. And Jackson's interests are much more cinematic, those of a director I deem.

I have nothing good to say about Peter Jackson's moviemaking lately other than that he can make entertainment. Light and fluffy but mostly entertaining. This sells. He has no fixed goal from the investors who make the movies happen, other than to sell and sell well. Preservation of some sort of Tolkien legacy is not part of the agenda.

Blatant alterations, omissions, extra storylines out of the blue and downright misunderstanding of the Tolkien text was bound to happen, and it did.

Not a bad thing from a money-making point of view but not so good from the viewpoint of someone like me who is obsessing over the original written content. It's entertaining but it's not Tolkien. That's OK.

Christopher Tolkien's attitude is understandable given his personal connection to the literature. That doesn't mean I don't think he's being unreasonable though.

As far as the Sil goes, I don't think it's well suited to a movie adaptation anyways. A TV series, perhaps, would work better. I'll be interested to see what's done with it, if I'm even still alive by that time. ;)

Not going into the whole Peter Jackson films debate. We've had about a billion of them, and nobody is going to budge from their viewpoint. I like them, I think they did a good job of conveying the spirit of the books, that's as far as I care about it.

I was also somewhat relieved that it will be a long time, however there's so many stories in the Silmarillion, which ones would they choose anyway? Luthien and Beren would probably suit itself quite well to a film, but the Children of Hurin would have to be altered significantly (I can't see them allowing incest on screen somehow!)
A lot of the others are rather too 'Biblicalesque', I don't think the story of creation would make a particularly enthralling cinema visit, however much I might like reading it... Fëanor and his sons might work, but it would be very long.

I think if it was ever done it would be done in Star Wars format, maybe five or six films long to get it all in.

The only problem with that would be the sheer amount of detail and dialogue that would need to be made up, the book only being sufficient as a framework to build around.

Personally, I think the majority of it is unfilmable. Outright mythology tends to look naff on screen (so forget any scene involving Valinor or any of the Valar other than Morgoth) and elsewhere there are just too many Elves. I reckon they'd need to pick a tale with a sympathetic (i.e. human) hero, with the best candidate being 'Of Beren and Luthien' because that's got all the right ingredients for an epic, even a happy ending. As for the next most obvious alternative (the tale of Turin), as someone already pointed out they couldn't do real justice to it because the central tragedy would be too dark and disturbing for a mass audience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lindaelle

Hasn't read Silmarillion for 25 years and won't? That explains if some changes in the movies are wrong - how can you fully understand Tolkien's stories, if you don't understand Silmarillion? This makes Philippa as a questionable "Tolkien expert" in my eyes. And Jackson's interests are much more cinematic, those of a director I deem.

---

Narrative adaptations and clearly demarcated IP licensing requires a distancing, often deliberate, from related works otherwise potential rights violations can occur. A different example of this issue is LOTRO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hallasan

Narrative adaptations and clearly demarcated IP licensing requires a distancing, often deliberate, from related works otherwise potential rights violations can occur. A different example of this issue is LOTRO.

---

Given the changes Tolkien made to his works over the years its hard to say how disappointed he would have been over the movies. The changes made were made with today's generation in mind with hopes to appeal to a wider audience which it did. There were 2 previous attempts at the Lord of The Rings, one was too dark and the other was waaay too fluffy.

Someday there will be another attempt and i am sure there will be an equal number of people dissatisfied with that attemt as well

If certain large corporations have their way, rights will never run out on any fictional characters from books, TV or movies. Nor will anything by any writer or musician go public domain again. Too much money to be made by owning it forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Firemane0

Given the changes Tolkien made to his works over the years its hard to say how disappointed he would have been over the movies.

---

That's a red herring, as none of that is relevant to LOTR. The mythological side of things was the key thing he seriously reconsidered over the years and that was kept very much in the background of LOTR (it's only ever hinted at). He'd concluded that the sort of old-school mythology you'll find in the early chapters of the Sil (e.g. the Sun and Moon being made from the fruits of the Two Trees) doesn't play well with a modern audience, that you therefore can't really 'do' that sort of mythology any more.

Quote:

---

The changes made were made with today's generation in mind with hopes to appeal to a wider audience which it did.

---

You're generalising something awful there. Some changes were evidently made with that in mind, but by no means all of them. Some of them were to do with pacing, some to make the story easier to follow in adapting it to the different medium, some to add a fight scene or two, some to switch dialogue around between characters. The 'trendy' changes were mostly disposable junk, though (with the odd exception like giving Arwen an expanded role, which was a good idea) and the movies succeeded despite them (clumsy as they were), not because of them.

But the Silmarillion isn't just one story, it's a history and as such has a lot of stories contained within (though not told in full). My question is, if someone plans on making a movie based on that book, which part will they focus on? My guess will probably be the third section, dealing with the history of Sauron and the rings of power up until the years before the trilogy took place, associated story and all that.

I would like to see someone try to do a film interpretation of the story of the first age and the Silmarils, I always thought the story was terribly beautiful and tragic, but I'm also afraid that it would end up rubbish because it would either up up a giant fantasy action movie or a tragic romance movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Piff

I would like to see someone try to do a film interpretation of the story of the first age and the Silmarils, I always thought the story was terribly beautiful and tragic, but I'm also afraid that it would end up rubbish because it would either up up a giant fantasy action movie or a tragic romance movie.

---

Unfortunately yes, because for storytelling movies are far simpler in nature than the books are. Tolkien knew what he spoke of, when he said that his books don't really work as plays or movies (he wasn't really a fan of plays or movies in the first place). I think they were meant to be books most of all, because the stories really do take all the advantage out of the complexity of literature.

Which makes it a shame, really, that some people think that the movies are originals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lindaelle

Unfortunately yes, because for storytelling movies are far simpler in nature than the books are. Tolkien knew what he spoke of, when he said that his books don't really work as plays or movies (he wasn't really a fan of plays or movies in the first place). I think they were meant to be books most of all, because the stories really do take all the advantage out of the complexity of literature.

Which makes it a shame, really, that some people think that the movies are originals.

---

I haven't read Silmarillion completely, (I shamefully skipped some parts, previously read some chapters to understand references to LOTR) but the way it was written I have to agree, the stories were made for print. OR if someone is really creative perhaps it can be made into visual media, but I doubt if it's that easy. otherwise the movie industry will be full of critically acclaimed book adaptations, which sadly is not the case at present :)

I believe it could be done in 2 movies...maybe 3. Lots of it I don't believe could be made into a movie unless they take the basics of the mythology and create a new story around it.

I could see The Tale of Beren and Luthien being a great movie. It really has everything to be a great movie.

I think the Children of Hurin could be a movie but would be very dark. The only way I could see that being a movie is if they make some serious changes or make it into a real action movie with less story (basically focus on the fighting and expanding that rather then the rest of the story).

I could also maybe see a movie on the Numenoreans. That story relates more to The Hobbit/LOTR but once again I believe would need some serious expansion to be made into a solid movie.

The one problem I see with movies based off the Silmarillion is getting everything explained and not missing some great parts. I believe a movie about Beren and Luthien could explain a lot of the mythology and such and cover some major points. I think Children of Hurin would have to be more independent with only a bit of history.

No matter how it is done I'm always hoping for more Middle Earth related films. It is nice to see what someone else imagines it is all like and see it come to life.

The type of mythology early on in The Sil is indeed very difficult to translate into a coherent and 'believable' format on the big screen. However if push came to shove I think they could do the pre-Flight of the Noldor part in the same manner as they did with the beginning of the FotR - just have a narrator telling the story.

From the Flight of the Noldor onwards I think it would make a pretty epic film series. I also think the ending would be ideal because it's neither a tragedy - after all Morgoth is defeated - but it's not a happy ending neither - the loss of all the elf kingdoms. It's inconclusive nature I think would make people wanting more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beleg-Of-Doriath

From the Flight of the Noldor onwards I think it would make a pretty epic film series.

---

Given how Elves seem to end up being shown in movies I have great difficulty in imagining that any movie where practically everyone was an Elf would be very engaging. Even in prose, there's the "Not another ****ing Elf!" problem that one of Tolkien's fellow Inklings first pointed out :)

Personally, I can more readily imagine it being filmable in stylized animated style (you know the sort of thing - like illustrations brought to life, with narration rather than having to invent loads of dialogue) and as an episodic affair, but not in general as a big-budget live-action movie, with the exceptions that I mentioned earlier (Beren and Luthien, basically). The reason I say 'episodic' is of course the great deal of time that passes (centuries) between the Return of the Noldor and the War of Wrath.

Quote:

---

I also think the ending would be ideal because it's neither a tragedy - after all Morgoth is defeated - but it's not a happy ending neither - the loss of all the elf kingdoms. It's inconclusive nature I think would make people wanting more.

---

The thing is, though, that we've already seen the 'more' as far as movies go. The Akallabeth would be problematic to film: any time anyone's tried to make a movie based on the Atlantis myth it's turned out rather naff and its pseudo-Biblical plot (a people are blessed by God, become ungrateful and turn against him, are seduced into evil ways and are ultimately destroyed for their sins) would have been better suited to some 1950s/1960s Technicolor epic than anything modern (just imagine Charlton Heston in his prime, playing Elendil and you'll get the idea ;) ). As for 'Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age', well, we know what happens there, don't we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Even in prose, there's the "Not another ****ing Elf!"

---

It's later told that Lewis didn't really say that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lindaelle

It's later told that Lewis didn't really say that.

---

Quite right, as it wasn't Lewis - it was Hugo Dyson :)

I think the Silmarillion could work as a series of shorter films, perhaps in a more experimental and alternative style. Only Akallabêth really visibly ties in to the Lord of the Rings, perhaps with some Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age thrown in, and could be done more like the others.

Concerning the Jackson movies, I think a good recut and moving some Radagast scenes to the FOTR could help a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Given how Elves seem to end up being shown in movies I have great difficulty in imagining that any movie where practically everyone was an Elf would be very engaging. Even in prose, there's the "Not another ****ing Elf!" problem that one of Tolkien's fellow Inklings first pointed out :)

Personally, I can more readily imagine it being filmable in stylized animated style (you know the sort of thing - like illustrations brought to life, with narration rather than having to invent loads of dialogue) and as an episodic affair, but not in general as a big-budget live-action movie, with the exceptions that I mentioned earlier (Beren and Luthien, basically). The reason I say 'episodic' is of course the great deal of time that passes (centuries) between the Return of the Noldor and the War of Wrath.

---

These points in particular make me think that The Sil would make a brilliant anime. :D

Quote:

---

Why there's no "Silmarillion" movie until 2043

---

I don't think so. The current concept of intellectual property is out of control, with an increased perception that it does more damage than good to both innovation and to consumers.

The current (in practice endless) duration of copyright after the author's death is going to fall way before 2043.

The scope of the narrative in the Silmarillion is comparable to the Old Testament (i.e. nearly the entire history of the cosmos, which necessarily involves hundreds of characters), whereas the scope of the LotR is more similar to the New Testament (i.e. an account of the great events a few years, focusing on a dozen or so people).

Adaptations of the New Testament have had some success, but the only successful adaptations of the Old Testament are based on short segments of it (e.g. The Ten Commandments).

While it will almost certainly never happen in my lifetime, an MMO-type adaptation of the Silmarillion might have more possibilities, because it wouldn't have to be restricted to a single time-frame like LotRO is. Elf characters could participate in events throughout most of the story, and Men could play different generations of the same family tree. (Dorfs, of course, would be the equivalent of Creeps, as they should have been treated in LotRO).

But alas, a Silmarillion MMO would have no Hobbits!

Eviscerated?
Now, guys, guys, guys, guys.
While the books remain better then the movies still; you have to admit Peter Jackson did a great job and no one could do any better accept Tolkien himself being a film producer.

And that is all I am going to say. but, I do think they will make a Silmarillion movie one day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RocketBoy

you have to admit Peter Jackson did a great job and no one could do any better

---

Umm, no we don't. I'm damn sure Guillermo del Toro could do better, for one.

I'd very much like to see what GdT would make of Morgoth, Wolf-Sauron, Carcharoth and Glaurung.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Umm, no we don't. I'm damn sure Guillermo del Toro could do better, for one.

I'd very much like to see what GdT would make of Morgoth, Wolf-Sauron, Carcharoth and Glaurung.

---

Are you sure? Considering that it is speculated that GdT is responsible for The Goblin King and The Stone Giant fight (and indeed there are shadows of these in his earlier works - so probably true.) I'm not so sure that his vision of those iconic characters will match mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dwarendele

Are you sure? Considering that it is speculated that GdT is responsible for The Goblin King and The Stone Giant fight (and indeed there are shadows of these in his earlier works - so probably true.) I'm not so sure that his vision of those iconic characters will match mine.

---

It pays to remember that the Great Goblin is grotesque in the book: 'a tremendous goblin with a huge head'. And given that GdT had little more time than it would take to do concepts before all the wrangling forced him off the movie, it wouldn't surprise me if the look of the Stone Giants was his work while what happens in that scene is someone else's.

But in any case, the guy can come up with some seriously scary stuff when he wants to and really understands fantasy in a way I don't think PJ does.

Maybe I am wrong but Peter Jackson still did very, very good and I don't want any arguing with that. OK?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RocketBoy

Maybe I am wrong but Peter Jackson still did very, very good and I don't want any arguing with that. OK?

---

LOL - Well then, OK!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fionnuala

These points in particular make me think that The Sil would make a brilliant anime. :D

---

* blink *

I just had a vision of the Silmarillion presented Heavy Metal style - a vision both intriguing and horrifying. :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lindaelle

My reaction? To be honest, relieved. I already have my own images of the book that I want to keep.

---

Yeah, I know what you are talking about. I saw the Lord of the Rings movies (and loved them) when I was 9 or 10 or something like that. When I first started reading the books a little over two years ago (I was almost 15 then), and I really understood what they were all about, I became angry with the films. The Lord of the Rings trilogy was the most magical, fantastical and enchanting piece of literature I had ever read, but because of the films I couldn't make my own pictures in my head for around half of the scenes that also appeared in the films. I damned the films and Peter Jackson and it has given me a broken heart... The magic was partly ruined for me.

I am SO glad I read many other books BEFORE the films, like The Hobbit and the Harry Potter series (though I read the last book about 5 years ago). I have noticed that I AM actually capable of keeping my own images in my head after seeing film versions of books I have already read. Bag End, the trolls, Rivendell, the goblins etc. are still the same in my head, DIFFERENT from the films. Hogwarts doesn't look like the film version in my head as well, and the characters have their own appearance.

Once again, a last lament: I wish the Lord of the Rings films would have come out after this series of The Hobbit films.

I think Christopher Tolkien's reaction is a little over dramatic.

The commercialization of LoTR has brought its amazing story and characters to a wider audience than ever before. How is that a bad thing? I'd also like to point out that Tolkien's original intent with writing the LoTR was to create modern day mythology. I think he of all people would understand that the point of myth isn't the details but in the act of telling it. I'm sure his renditions of Beowulf and the Arthurian legends differed a lot from the ones people hundreds of years ago told. I think the movies were as faithful as you can get them on the big screen in a way that will impact modern audiences. If people want more than that, they're more than welcome (and encouraged) to dive into the books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkheart06

I think Christopher Tolkien's reaction is a little over dramatic.

---

I imagine he thinks something vital got lost in translation.

Quote:

---

The commercialization of LoTR has brought its amazing story and characters to a wider audience than ever before. How is that a bad thing?

---

A semblance of its story and characters, and at times a highly unsubtle one. You can't really 'know' LOTR without reading it but having seen the movies, some people think they do.

Quote:

---

I'd also like to point out that Tolkien's original intent with writing the LoTR was to create modern day mythology.

---

No, that was an ambition he'd had as a young man, something he later dismissed as 'absurd'.

Quote:

---

I think he of all people would understand that the point of myth isn't the details but in the act of telling it. I'm sure his renditions of Beowulf and the Arthurian legends differed a lot from the ones people hundreds of years ago told.

---

I don't see that at all, as the style in which a myth is told does affect it. If you tell it like it's straightforward fantasy then that's how it comes across. If you separate it from its cultural roots, then it can lose something (this is what's happened to Arthurian myth, it became something very different to what it had once been when when French troubadours filled it with High Medieval tropes like chivalry and courtly love). Tolkien wanted something more genuine than that - he'd considered doing something with Arthurian myth himself but set it aside because its popular image was so overwhelmingly that of Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur. In much the same way, every time PJ fell back on modern fantasy tropes he was making the movies less genuine in that respect and it shows. CT does have a point, although I do think he overstates it somewhat.

Quote:

---

I think the movies were as faithful as you can get them on the big screen in a way that will impact modern audiences.

---

I can think of several ways that's demonstrably untrue, starting with how Gimli was crudely reduced to a figure of fun and moving on from there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

I can think of several ways that's demonstrably untrue, starting with how Gimli was crudely reduced to a figure of fun and moving on from there.

---

/seconded

They messed up Gimli

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

No, that was an ambition he'd had as a young man, something he later dismissed as 'absurd'.

---

That's a bit sad and ironic, then.

Because he DID create modern myth. Just as Greek myth influenced writing and story telling for hundreds of years after, so does LoTR. It created modern fantasy. The very same "tropes" you say ruined the movies were born from LoTR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkheart06

That's a bit sad and ironic, then.

Because he DID create modern myth. Just as Greek myth influenced writing and story telling for hundreds of years after, so does LoTR. It created modern fantasy. The very same "tropes" you say ruined the movies were born from LoTR.

---

True, true... Although while I do believe that Tolkien shaped the great things about fantasy writing (and others contributed to this, such as C.S. Lewis, Robert E. Howard and more modern writers like R.A. Salvatore), I believe other writers created the flaws and bad parts of fantasy writing...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkheart06

That's a bit sad and ironic, then.

Because he DID create modern myth. Just as Greek myth influenced writing and story telling for hundreds of years after, so does LoTR. It created modern fantasy. The very same "tropes" you say ruined the movies were born from LoTR.

---

LOTR has been much-imitated, yes, but at times the movies had the air of one of the imitations rather than the genuine article because PJ couldn't maintain a convincing 'air' of myth and legend - it thus degenerated into straightforward fantasy, most likely because he was trying a bit too hard to appeal to a modern audience and to wow everyone with sheer spectacle. (Hence the Oliphaunts being preposterously huge, for example). I'm afraid that whatever else, subtlety isn't PJ's strong suit.

Tolkien didn't invent the whole of modern fantasy; for example, we owe the sword-and-sorcery variety to writers like Robert E Howard and his contemporaries. What Tolkien did do was to invent a certain kind of epic and to make fantasy in general a widely popular genre, inspiring a generation of writers who made sure it stayed that way. Some imitated Tolkien, but many others did not.

Good point on the tales of Camelot, people keep making terrible versions the latest being "Merlin", no one ever gets it "right" or even seems to try, the best version was the problematic Excalibur, given this dont hold out for a version of the Silmarilion that hits the spot.

If the Silmarillion is eventually made into a film, I think I would like to see Ang Lee direct it. Just from the simple fact that he has already taken an "unfilmable" book and made an incredible film out of it (Life of Pi). I feel he might be able to pull out something really breathtaking.

Of course that is only IF the Silmarillion is ever made into a film.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ioralor

If the Silmarillion is eventually made into a film, I think I would like to see Ang Lee direct it. Just from the simple fact that he has already taken an "unfilmable" book and made an incredible film out of it (Life of Pi). I feel he might be able to pull out something really breathtaking.

Of course that is only IF the Silmarillion is ever made into a film.

---

I think he would be one of the best candidates indeed... Then again, making a film out of a deep psychological and absurdistic book is not at all the same as making a film out of a grand epic fantasy history... Especially not when millions of people around the world will want to lynch you when you do it wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macroscian

Not a bad thing from a money-making point of view but not so good from the viewpoint of someone like me who is obsessing over the original written content. It's entertaining but it's not Tolkien. That's OK.

---

I agree with you on this one, but that's because it ws never meant to be Tolkien, it was Jackson, who took the stories of the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings, and created his own movies out of it, and i think he did a great job so far.

Also, if the Silmarillion is ever made into movies or a TV-series, I think they should start from the beginning of Middle-Earth, with the Books of Lost Tales, in a TV-series, and then make (a) movie(s) of the Quenta Silmarillion. And I wouldn't mind Peter Jackson doing it. Hey may not always stay true to the original lore, but I really like how he has given his own twist to the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit. Except for the elves in Helm's Deep. I hate that.

So I think, after the Hobbit Trilogy, it shoulb be laid to rest for at least another 10 years, and then see if anyone is willing to make an attempt to film the remaning lore in Tolkien's universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReallyFat

So really, the Silmarillion can never be made into a movie. it is a depressing realization, but it's the reality. Maybe we could have a TV series- but again, it would be EXTREMELY long.

---

Think back to when people used to make movies based on something from the Old Testament - they only ever filmed a bit at a time, like the tale of Samson (Samson and Delilah), or Moses (The Ten Commandments), and the same principle could readily be applied to the Sil. Apart from the creation itself, which is completely unfilmable, outright mythology looks hokey on the screen so it'd actually be best to leave the Valar unseen. There are tales which are self-contained, forming a discrete and epic narrative in themselves - Beren and Luthien is one, the tale of Turin another - and those could, in principle, be filmed (although the tale of Turin would end up so dark and grim that it's hard to imagine the mass audience taking to it). Much of the rest suffers from the problem of being mostly about Elves (audience problems again) or taking place over extended periods of time, so again pretty much unfilmable. You could get a solid trilogy out of it, though (with the remaining one being the Fall of Gondolin, as that has Hurin in it and so the tale could be told from his perspective and that'd be as epic as anyone could wish for, cast of thousands and all that).

Got to think out of the box a bit. Still, ain't gonna happen before 2043 at the earliest by which time I'd be an old git, if I'm still here at all so I can't say I'm fussed about it :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReallyFat

The Fall of Gondolin would have to be from Tuor's POV, not Húrin's- he had killed himself many years before

---

Beg pardon, I'm tired. Yes, of course it's 'Of Tuor and the Fall of Gondolin'.... *hides*

Still, you see what I'm getting at in general, yes?

The Silmarillion is far too long to be made in 1 movie. If ever done will be a lot of movies to complete the whole story. & if loyal to the books, some of them will be adult only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReallyFat

I do not believe so. Tolkien deliberately eschewed including such things as blatant sex in his books, and there is no example of it in the entire Silmarillion. Please don't pick out random parts like 'Níniel conceived his baby', and therefore a scene must be shown. All we are told in the books is that in spring she conceived... and that is all we need to know. The entire Silmarillion should still be PG-13, I believe. In parts like where Niënor runs through the forest and her clothes get torn could be avoided by the excuse of the flashing lightning and the speed at which she runs, and then they could simply show Túrin walking out of the shot and returning with her in his arms wrapped in a cloak. That was the only part in the entire Silmarillion with nudity.

Unless you think they should be adult for reasons of violence, there really isn't a problem.

---

I take it nudity is a problem for PG-13? I'm not familiar with US rating and censoring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReallyFat

I do not believe so. Tolkien deliberately eschewed including such things as blatant sex in his books, and there is no example of it in the entire Silmarillion. Please don't pick out random parts like 'Níniel conceived his baby', and therefore a scene must be shown. All we are told in the books is that in spring she conceived... and that is all we need to know. The entire Silmarillion should still be PG-13, I believe. In parts like where Niënor runs through the forest and her clothes get torn could be avoided by the excuse of the flashing lightning and the speed at which she runs, and then they could simply show Túrin walking out of the shot and returning with her in his arms wrapped in a cloak. That was the only part in the entire Silmarillion with nudity.

Unless you think they should be adult for reasons of violence, there really isn't a problem.

---

The nudity is optional (she could be shown as wearing rags rather than being entirely naked, it's not essential to the plot). Scenes of battle don't seem to be a problem for PG-13 provided there's no ultraviolence so yes, in general PG-13 looks doable (just as it was for LOTR, without losing anything). The one thing that does make me wonder is the psychological horror of Turin and Nienor's situation - incest is very powerful and disturbing stuff thematically because it's taboo, and such a movie would have to pull no punches when it came to psychological impact on the audience, it's all or nothing with such a darkly tragic tale. Bit of a problem regarding the intended audience, thoigh - would a general audience or people who were simply LOTR fans really be up for something so unremittingly grim?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

The nudity is optional (she could be shown as wearing rags rather than being entirely naked, it's not essential to the plot). Scenes of battle don't seem to be a problem for PG-13 provided there's no ultraviolence so yes, in general PG-13 looks doable (just as it was for LOTR, without losing anything). The one thing that does make me wonder is the psychological horror of Turin and Nienor's situation - incest is very powerful and disturbing stuff thematically because it's taboo, and such a movie would have to pull no punches when it came to psychological impact on the audience, it's all or nothing with such a darkly tragic tale. Bit of a problem regarding the intended audience, thoigh - would a general audience or people who were simply LOTR fans really be up for something so unremittingly grim?

---

Oh I don't know, Game of Thrones seems to be doing fine with it.
Besides, we've already had the triple-incest of Aragorn and Arwen's union.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BirdofHermes

Oh I don't know, Game of Thrones seems to be doing fine with it.

---

GoT is hardly PG-13 material, is it? And GRRM's work is consistently full of all manner of nastiness, large and small; by contrast, what happens to Turin and Nienor is far, far darker than is typical of Tolkien's tales (and even stands out among the Sil's general doom and gloom) and hence is not at all what people might expect. It's like the twist in Park Chan-wook's Oldboy, which is likewise midnight dark and grim.

Quote:

---

Besides, we've already had the triple-incest of Aragorn and Arwen's union.

---

Sorry, what? They're related at such a distant remove (umpteen generations) that it can hardly be called that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

GoT is hardly PG-13 material, is it?

---

I don't know, I have no idea how it's rated over there.

Quote:

---

And GRRM's work is consistently full of all manner of nastiness, large and small; by contrast, what happens to Turin and Nienor is far, far darker than is typical of Tolkien's tales (and even stands out among the Sil's general doom and gloom) and hence is not at all what people might expect. It's like the twist in Park Chan-wook's Oldboy, which is likewise midnight dark and grim.

---

Certainly.

Quote:

---

Sorry, what? They're related at such a distant remove (umpteen generations) that it can hardly be called that.

---

But wouldn't it be great if those 3 generations of incest caused Aragorn's kids to have physical and/or mental dificulties? I can just imagine the next mouth-breathing monarch of the Reunited Kingdom constantly falling over where he stands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BirdofHermes

I don't know, I have no idea how it's rated over there.

---

It's hardly like GoT is a borderline case - lots of nudity and graphic violence. It's rated 'TV MA' in the US, i.e. for mature audiences. Over here in the UK the DVD boxed set is rated '18'. So not family fare, yes? The LOTR movies were rated '12' here. That's what I was getting at, people aren't used to the idea of Tolkien's stuff containing the sort of seriously twisted malevolence that Glaurung inflicts on Turin and Nienor. In GoT, everyone expects it because it's got a well-deserved reputation.

Quote:

---

But wouldn't it be great if those 3 generations of incest caused Aragorn's kids to have physical and/or mental dificulties? I can just imagine the next mouth-breathing monarch of the Reunited Kingdom constantly falling over where he stands.

---

Three generations? I'm not sure what you're trying to get at there, it'd have been hundreds of generations of Men since Elrond and Elros went their separate ways so Aragorn and Arwen were cousins in only the vaguest possible sense. Joking aside it tends to take consistent inbreeding over many generations to really mess things up - you can see that in the real-life example of how weird the Habsburg dynasty eventually became, it took a while for the oddities to surface.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

It's hardly like GoT is a borderline case - lots of nudity and graphic violence. It's rated 'TV MA' in the US, i.e. for mature audiences. Over here in the UK the DVD boxed set is rated '18'. So not family fare, yes? The LOTR movies were rated '12' here. That's what I was getting at, people aren't used to the idea of Tolkien's stuff containing the sort of seriously twisted malevolence that Glaurung inflicts on Turin and Nienor. In GoT, everyone expects it because it's got a well-deserved reputation.

---

Waw, I had no idea it was rated thusly in US/UK.

Quote:

---

Three generations? I'm not sure what you're trying to get at there, it'd have been hundreds of generations of Men since Elrond and Elros went their separate ways so Aragorn and Arwen were cousins in only the vaguest possible sense. Joking aside it tends to take consistent inbreeding over many generations to really mess things up - you can see that in the real-life example of how weird the Habsburg dynasty eventually became, it took a while for the oddities to surface.

---

You misunderstand me, I did not mean three generations in Aragorn's line (which would not make a difference in the 42 generations of his ancestors since Elros), but in Arwen's.
But you're quite right, Aragorn's bloodline should be sufficiently diluted over the generations to not pose a problem.


... but it'd still be funny if it did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BirdofHermes

You misunderstand me, I did not mean three generations in Aragorn's line (which would not make a difference in the 42 generations of his ancestors since Elros), but in Arwen's.

---

Oh, I see what you mean now :)

Thing is, Arwen had obviously turned out okay (and then some), and apparently genetically speaking a bit of inbreeding does little harm and may even do some good (because some shared traits can be beneficial), so there you go. Doesn't exactly come recommended but it seems you can get away with it... up to a point.

It seems to me that the Tale of the Children of Hurin, in order to make an overall good arc with some really dark spots to it instead of a full on tragedy (which, as has been pointed out, is not the average Tolkien fare), would be better told in visual media as a tale encompassing the fortunes of the House of Hador in general. That would encompass the coming of Men to Beleriand, Hurin and Huor's visit to Gondolin and their subsequent capture and death respectively at the Nirnaeth, the lives of their two children, the Fall of both Nargothrond and Gondolin, and the rise of Earendil, ending in the War of Wrath. Call it the legend of Earendil, perhaps, and interweave it with Beren and Luthien and the Fall of Doriath? That would be the hook, people even from the movies know the name even if they don't know why the Elves hold such reverence for a star. Tell of the destruction of the two trees in retrospect, showing only Morgoth, Ungoliant and the trees, the slaying of Finwe at Formenos and Feanor's subsequent overreaction and the Noldor's flight. I think doing it that way would give an overall hopeful arc (from even the worst can come good) and allow you to touch on all of the high and low points of the Silmarillion without having to delve too much into the creation mythos, which I agree would likely be unfilmable. Well, that's what I think anyway.

It would have to be a TV series, one that spans many seasons. Otherwise, don't even bother. I won't bother to see any movie made of the Sil.

I'd rather watch http://www.stormovergondolin.com/ than a Peter Jackson or Hollywood version.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by druidofbreeland

I'd rather watch http://www.stormovergondolin.com/ than a Peter Jackson or Hollywood version.

---

That website have no date of release, so did they already started filming? Are they still filming? Are they done? Do you know any estimate time about when they will be done?

No I do not know any of those things. On the very first page there's a video diary (the first one) from September of this year. This tells me the project is still in its infancy, in fact, their facebook page (link on the website) says they're still in pre-production. So it may still well be a while before it comes to full fruition, but that is still quicker than anything "official" we'd get.

Well, thanks, i keep an eye. I hope it result in a nicely done movie & that none one jump over them about copyrights...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

. Joking aside it tends to take consistent inbreeding over many generations to really mess things up - you can see that in the real-life example of how weird the Habsburg dynasty eventually became, it took a while for the oddities to surface.

---

I had to Google that family, I had never heard of them. Wow, inbreeding led to their extinction. Is there a website or actual book that with detailed information on their history? Wiki just has an abridged version. I'm a major history freak and would love to know more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nymphonic

I had to Google that family, I had never heard of them. Wow, inbreeding led to their extinction. Is there a website or actual book that with detailed information on their history? Wiki just has an abridged version. I'm a major history freak and would love to know more.

---

Here is some reliable resource but the website is heavy about genetics. You will need a text book beside you if is not your specialization.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal .pone.0005174
Let me mention that Habsburg was not the only royal family, with severe genetical defects, reinforced by inbreeding. Royal families are a scientist favorite resource, to study all sort of mutations, that normally will be wiped of the population by natural selection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nymphonic

I had to Google that family, I had never heard of them. Wow, inbreeding led to their extinction. Is there a website or actual book that with detailed information on their history? Wiki just has an abridged version. I'm a major history freak and would love to know more.

---

Perhaps you may have heard of them when I say they are either the ancestors of or married into nearly every european monarchy that exists and has existed in the past 500 years. In your high school history classes they will have likely popped up everywhere, but with different names as the the names of the royal houses would be combined.
For example my current monarch (Belgian) is a descendant the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, which combined the family names of the two greatest duchies in its recent history. But this family branch styled themselves "of Belgium" rather than "of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" since the first World War to distance themselves from their german ancestry, as did the British monarchy (half a century earlier they too had a king of the same house and name). They are related to various other imperial and royal houses(*), including imperial House Habsburg, but that one is left out because it just wasn't recent enough to have any meaning. In contrast the most recent addition, a 'mere' noble house of baron d'Udekem d'Acoz, isn't added to the royal house name because it isn't important enough. Plus they have sort of stopped the whole combining house names here, they simply keep it at "of Belgium".


(*) Most notably the imperial Houses Bonaparte, Reuss and Romanov (France, Holy Roman Empire and Russia respectively) and royal Houses Bernadotte (Sweden), Bourbon (France), Savoye (Italy), Windsor (Britain), Sleeswijk-Holstein (Danish and Norse), Wittelsbach (Bavaria), Bragança (Portugal), Wettin (Germany), and various smaller royal and noble houses. This was in a time when royalty and nobility interbred as much as possible to both maintain and expand their wealth (what good is marrying into a poor family?), and because they were divinely chosen rules and thus couldn't be seen mingling with commoners. >.>
As Yamide correctly points out, they are a favourite study subject on genetic mutations because they have had a lot of inbreeding but without most of the natural selective stress that goes with it. They just required to produce children before they die, everything else was done for them.

I would love a movie focusing on the Secone Age and Numenor. It could have a prologue like FotR where they establish past events such as Morgoth, Sauron, and the War of Wrath. I think it would be amazing to see Numenor on the big screen. There are a lot of people and events that tie directly into LotR like Sauron, the rings, Isildur, Elendil, etc. The climactic battle of the film could be the Last Alliance, and although they would probably have to go with the bastardized version shown in the FotR prologue, it would still be cool to see. They wouldn't even have to show Isildur getting killed later. Just showing him riding off with the ring would be ominous enough.

One of the scenes that I would absolutely love to see in movie form is the part where Sauron is sitting in the temple to Morgoth that he erected in Numenor basically laughing that he just sent the Numenoreans to their doom. And then the entire island just gets nuked along with him.

I hate the LOTR movies in comparison to the books. I'm so glad it'll take that long before they destroy the greatest novel on the face of the earth. Wish it would be longer. I'd rather be dead by the time they do it. They should wait until 2073 at the average human lifespan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macroscian

I have nothing good to say about Peter Jackson's moviemaking lately other than that he can make entertainment. Light and fluffy but mostly entertaining. This sells. He has no fixed goal from the investors who make the movies happen, other than to sell and sell well. Preservation of some sort of Tolkien legacy is not part of the agenda.

Blatant alterations, omissions, extra storylines out of the blue and downright misunderstanding of the Tolkien text was bound to happen, and it did.

Not a bad thing from a money-making point of view but not so good from the viewpoint of someone like me who is obsessing over the original written content. It's entertaining but it's not Tolkien. That's OK.

---

I don't think what Tolkien was aiming for when he wrote The Lord of the Rings was so far from 'entertainment.'