Why there's no "Silmarillion" movie until 2043

[Radhruin_EU]

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.

[RocketBoy]

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

[Dwarendele]

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!!

[Bauglin]

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

* blink *

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

[DwarfFriend]

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.

[Darkheart06]

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.

[Radhruin_EU]

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

I imagine he thinks something vital got lost in translation.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

[DwarfFriend]

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

[Darkheart06]

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.

[DwarfFriend]

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...

[Radhruin_EU]

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.

[Morthaur]

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.

[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.

[DwarfFriend]

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.

[Deothryth]

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.

[Radhruin_EU]

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

[Radhruin_EU]

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?

[YamydeAragon]

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.

[BirdofHermes]

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.

[Radhruin_EU]

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?

[BirdofHermes]

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.

[Radhruin_EU]

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.

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.

[BirdofHermes]

GoT is hardly PG-13 material, is it?

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

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.

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.

[Radhruin_EU]

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.

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.

[BirdofHermes]

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.

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.