Silmarillion movies

[nmstevens]

But even though the Silmarillion was the last of the books that I'd
read - I don't remember a single freaking character from any of it --
never mind a single character than ran all the way through and had the
same kind of humanity of Bilbo, Frodo, or Sam.

It was not written in the same level of detail or the same
"novelistic" style as _The Hobbit_ or _LOTR_, in which the
readers are privy to the inner thoughts and feelings of the
characters. It was never intended to be. It was intended to be
a created mythology and cycle of legends, like the
similarly-named _Mabinogion_ or like books of fairy-stories such
as _The Blue Fairy Book_.
A movie could still be made based on stories from it, just
as movies were made based on Snow White, Beauty and the Beast,
The Little Mermaid etc. Though of course the tales are
considerably darker than the Disney movies; perhaps a better
analogy would be to Neil Jordan's 1985 movie _The Company of
Wolves_, or the recent Inuit movie _Atanarjuat: The Fast
Runner_. Or Cocteau's _Beauty and the Beast_, for that matter.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but isn't it true that it was created, much as a
lot of the LOTR appendices were -- to fill in the background world of
the mythology of LOTR -- and was never intended to be published or to
stand independently.

You are mistaken. Tolkien was writing pieces of it from
1917 on, and the publication of _LOTR_ was delayed from 1949 to
1954 because he was looking for a publisher that would agree to
publish both _LOTR_ and _The Silmarillion_ together. Because he
never got this agreement at that time, he never finished it at
that time, and it remained unfinished at his death.

Well, there's a reason why "The Hobbit" and LOTR was written in a
"novelistic" style.

They were novels.

And while it may be an interesting pursuit, in an academic way, to try
to create, from scratch, a previously non-existent, historically and
culturally valid mythology, which is what Tolkien was really trying to
do with The Silmarillion, that doesn't necessarily make for a
compelling read -- which may account for its rather disjointed style
-- and for why, ultimately, the problems he had trying to get it
published.

And I disagree strongly with those who suggest that you can simply
slap on the front of something, "From the Makers of "LOTR" and have
another hit -- any more than it was possible to slap on the cover of
"The Silmarillion" "From the Author of LOTR" and have it sell as many
copies as LOTR -- it didn't -- it hasn't -- and it never will.

It lacks the power of LOTR. Despite being shorter, it felt longer.
While the style might be appropriate to the "mythological" style -- it
certainly didn't make it easier to read.

At the heart of the adaptation of "LOTR" -- what made it work, was
that it was done by somebody who really loved it -- and there was an
audience of millions of readers who knew the book and also loved it.
And they may have have doubts about whether a movie version would ever
work -- but in large measure, Jackson proved that a movie version
could be done and could, in large measure be faithful, and could work.

Where is the filmmaker who "loves" the freaking Silmarillion -- and
where is the audience of millions waiting with baited breath to see
it?

NMS

[the softrat]

Post by nmstevens
Well, there's a reason why "The Hobbit" and LOTR was written in a
"novelistic" style.
They were novels.

D'oh!!!!


the softrat
"I feel like I'm beating my head against a dead horse."
mailto:***@pobox.com
--
"Tracers work both ways." - U.S. Army Ordnance Corps memo.

[nmstevens]

Post by the softrat

Post by nmstevens
Well, there's a reason why "The Hobbit" and LOTR was written in a
"novelistic" style.
They were novels.

D'oh!!!!
the softrat
"I feel like I'm beating my head against a dead horse."

Well, the point is, "The Hobbit" and LOTR were novels, written as
novels.

The Silmarillion is written in the form of mythology (as somebody
said, like the Malibolgion) -- but the fact is - it *isn't* mythology
-- that is simply a stylistic choice. The former works are written in
the style of what they are - the latter is written in the style of
what it, truly, is *not* -- but merely pretends to be.

Now, that kind of literary device can sometimes work. There is, for
instance, the "epistlary" novel -- whole novels written in the form of
diaries or letters or fragments of newspapers cuttings -- the device
intended to give a sense of immediacy and reality. And sometimes it
works very well, and you are drawn into it and actually believe that
you are reading the putative "diary" or the actual letters of the
imaginary particants - and sometimes the artifice of the device
actually works against it -- when somebody is supposedly describing
events in a letter third or fourth hand -- and recounting lengthy
stretches of spoken dialogue verbatim.

But the "mythic" novel -- the book written as if it were "mythos" --
that is a tough thing to pull off -- and I don't think that even
Tolkien, with all of his scholarship -- probably the most academically
brilliant person ever to attempt it -- even he doesn't really pull it
off.

The trouble is -- to really read actual mythological writings is a
challenge -- to sit down, for instance, and read a translation of
Gilgamesh or the Malbinogion is not light reading. It's hard stuff to
plow through. You need cultural context and much of it is difficult to
understand without it.

And so part of what makes "mythological" writings believable -- is
that complexity -- that rooting in a culture that is long gone, and
that we, as a reader, only have a distant and fragmentary
understanding of.

The challenge -- and I don't know if any author has ever really
succeeded - is to preserve that quality -- and yet write a truly
readable book.

And it is that very quality that makes it difficult to read, and makes
it hard to imagine that it would ever have the potential to be a
best-selling book in the same way that LOTR was and is -- and makes it
difficult to imagine that it would ever be translated to the screen.

Of course -- I've been wrong before.

NMS

[David Dalton]

Post by nmstevens
But the "mythic" novel -- the book written as if it were "mythos" --
that is a tough thing to pull off -- and I don't think that even
Tolkien, with all of his scholarship -- probably the most academically
brilliant person ever to attempt it -- even he doesn't really pull it
off.

Well, he would have if had stayed alive to its publication
though Christopher Tolkien and Guy Gavriel Kay did a reasonable
job.

Post by nmstevens
The trouble is -- to really read actual mythological writings is a
challenge -- to sit down, for instance, and read a translation of
Gilgamesh or the Malbinogion is not light reading. It's hard stuff to
plow through. You need cultural context and much of it is difficult to
understand without it.

Well, you need nuts like me who experience what is poetically
encoded in mythology, and also mythology scholars, to interprete
it a bit, in various ways in some cases, and then you need an
imagination.

DRD

[Jamie Andrews; real address @ bottom of message]

Post by nmstevens
And while it may be an interesting pursuit, in an academic way, to try
to create, from scratch, a previously non-existent, historically and
culturally valid mythology, which is what Tolkien was really trying to
do with The Silmarillion, that doesn't necessarily make for a
compelling read -- which may account for its rather disjointed style
-- and for why, ultimately, the problems he had trying to get it
published.

I agree that the unusual nature of Silm is the reason why
he had trouble getting it published. However, its subsequent
success is an indication that there was a market for it. It's
probably sold more copies than most fantasy novels other than
LOTR. There are plenty of people who (like me) think it's at
least as interesting and compelling as LOTR, and some (like Yuk
Tang, a reader of RABT) who think it's better.

Post by nmstevens
Where is the filmmaker who "loves" the freaking Silmarillion -- and
where is the audience of millions waiting with baited breath to see
it?

There were filmmakers who loved Philip K. Dick stories
before most people outside of fandom had ever heard of him, and
they produced _Blade Runner_, _Total Recall_, and _Minority
Report_. I'm pretty sure Silm has sold more copies and is loved
by more people than _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?_ was
at the time Hampton Fancher started writing the screenplay for
_Blade Runner_.

--Jamie. (nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita)
andrews .uwo } Merge these two lines to obtain my e-mail address.
@csd .ca } (Unsolicited "bulk" e-mail costs everyone.)

[nmstevens]

Post by Jamie Andrews; real address @ bottom of message

Post by nmstevens
And while it may be an interesting pursuit, in an academic way, to try
to create, from scratch, a previously non-existent, historically and
culturally valid mythology, which is what Tolkien was really trying to
do with The Silmarillion, that doesn't necessarily make for a
compelling read -- which may account for its rather disjointed style
-- and for why, ultimately, the problems he had trying to get it
published.

I agree that the unusual nature of Silm is the reason why
he had trouble getting it published. However, its subsequent
success is an indication that there was a market for it. It's
probably sold more copies than most fantasy novels other than
LOTR.

That may be true -- but since the number of copies that most fantasy
novels -- other than LOTR has sold is generally very small (compared
to general bestseller type numbers) -- it's no trick to sell more than
"most" - and yet to sell substantially less than what LOTR has sold --
which the Silmarillion certainly has.


There are plenty of people who (like me) think it's at

Post by Jamie Andrews; real address @ bottom of message
least as interesting and compelling as LOTR, and some (like Yuk
Tang, a reader of RABT) who think it's better.

There's clearly a certain number of people who like it -- maybe even
who love it -- but most, I'm afraid, don't. At least, among those
people I know who've read it -- or tried to, that's the overwhelming
opinion that I've received - and the reality is, it's not even as if
*most* people who've read the LOTR have read the Silmarillion. They
haven't. The two works do not sell in comparable numbers.

Post by Jamie Andrews; real address @ bottom of message

Post by nmstevens
Where is the filmmaker who "loves" the freaking Silmarillion -- and
where is the audience of millions waiting with baited breath to see
it?

There were filmmakers who loved Philip K. Dick stories
before most people outside of fandom had ever heard of him, and
they produced _Blade Runner_, _Total Recall_, and _Minority
Report_. I'm pretty sure Silm has sold more copies and is loved
by more people than _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?_ was
at the time Hampton Fancher started writing the screenplay for
_Blade Runner_.

For movies like "Blade Runner" the source material isn't frankly about
attracting the viewing audience. It never has been. Dick has a certain
fan follwing, but compared to the size of the audience the a major
motion picture needs to attract to be profitable, if ever Phil K. Dick
fan in the world were to go to ever movie adaptation of his work ten
times -- they would still be total financial disasters -- if that was
the only audience.

The reason that Dick tends to get adapted has much less to deal with
his fan appeal and much more to do with the fact that his stories tend
to contain intriguing ideas that tend to appeal to movie executives --
who see in them the potential for neat science fiction films. And
especially after there was one adaptation that did well, the
"potential" for a successful adaptation from a Dick story, needless to
say, become even more obvious to executives at the studios.

But that has nothing to do with the rationale behind adapting a
full-blown best-selling novel - or series of novels, which are famous
in their own right.

The Harry Potter books weren't bought and made because somebody read
them and thought, "Gee, these would make great movies" -- irrespective
of whether they would or not -- their *intrinsic* movie-worthiness had
nothing to do with that decision.

The point is -- you can say, "Harry Potter" to almost anybody -- and
even if they've never read the books, they know about them -- they
know what you're talking about -- it's become a world-wide cultural
phenomemon. That's the kind of publicity that a studio can't buy --
virtually universal name recognition.

That's what New Line had with LOTR from the get-go -- virtually
universal name recognition. Even people who'd never read the book,
knew the name, had some sense of what it was about -- because LOTR has
become, over the last thirty years, a cultural phenomenon.

But the "Silmarillion" is not part of that name recognition. For the
overwhelming majority of people you would have to explain what it is
-- and the cold, cruel fact is -- nobody would sit still for a version
of the Silmarillion with "The Hobbit" as yet unmade - which, unlike
the Silmarillion, is a direct prequel to LOTR, features a number of
the same characters, and *has* the comparable name recognition.

NMS

[Gawnsoft]

On 6 Apr 2004 21:01:53 -0700, ***@msn.com (nmstevens) wrote
(more or less):
...

Post by nmstevens
The Harry Potter books weren't bought and made because somebody read
them and thought, "Gee, these would make great movies" --

Actually, they were bought because of precisely that. And prior to
publication.

Post by nmstevens
irrespective
of whether they would or not -- their *intrinsic* movie-worthiness had
nothing to do with that decision.
The point is -- you can say, "Harry Potter" to almost anybody -- and
even if they've never read the books, they know about them -- they
know what you're talking about -- it's become a world-wide cultural
phenomemon. That's the kind of publicity that a studio can't buy --
virtually universal name recognition.

Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[nmstevens]

Post by Gawnsoft
...

Post by nmstevens
The Harry Potter books weren't bought and made because somebody read
them and thought, "Gee, these would make great movies" --

Actually, they were bought because of precisely that. And prior to
publication.

Read carefully what I wrote -- "bought and *made*" -- and by the way,
I think that you're mistaken about the movie rights having been bought
before publication -- they may have been bought before *U.S.*
publication -- but I think that it's highly unlikely that they were
bought before U.K. publication -- because Rowling got an incredible
amount of creative control -- not to mention money, in that deal --
infinitely more than she would have gotten on either front had she
sold the rights prior to U.K. publication when all anybody thought was
that this was just another kid fantasy and nobody realized how the
first book was going to take off.

And the simple fact is -- if it hadn't taken off -- if it hadn't
become a huge popular hit -- even if the book was exactly what it was,
page for page, line for line and, for whatever reason, it simply never
caught fire -- the movies would never have been made.

I repeat -- that's not why movies get made -- because a book is
"brilliant" -- or because a script is "brilliant" -- that doesn't get
the head of a studio to green light a picture. The process just
doesn't work that way.

NMS

[Jamie Andrews; real address @ bottom of message]

NMS, I'm not really sure what you're arguing here.
I thought that you were arguing that
(a) The fact that fewer people have bought Silm than LOTR
indicates that the vast majority of people who have read
Silm think that Silm is boring; and
(b) The fact that fewer people have bought Silm than LOTR, plus
the fact that Silm is boring, is why no movie based on Silm
will ever be made.
I was arguing against both of those points.

Post by nmstevens
That may be true -- but since the number of copies that most fantasy
novels -- other than LOTR has sold is generally very small (compared
to general bestseller type numbers) -- it's no trick to sell more than
"most" -

It's also no trick to sell substantially less than LOTR,
since it's one of the best-selling books ever.

Post by nmstevens
There's clearly a certain number of people who like it -- maybe even
who love it -- but most, I'm afraid, don't.

Again, I have to question whether the fact that fewer
people bought Silm than LOTR supports the view that "most people
don't like it", if that phrase is to be interpreted in some way
that is relevant to whether movies could be made based on it.

I would agree with the statement that most people who have
read Silm did not find the reading of it as enjoyable as the
reading of LOTR. This is probably why it doesn't sell as well
as LOTR. But this is a long way from saying that Silm is in
some absolute sense boring or unfilmable.

[schnipp]

Post by nmstevens
But the "Silmarillion" is not part of that name recognition. For the
overwhelming majority of people you would have to explain what it is
-- and the cold, cruel fact is -- nobody would sit still for a version
of the Silmarillion with "The Hobbit" as yet unmade - which, unlike
the Silmarillion, is a direct prequel to LOTR, features a number of
the same characters, and *has* the comparable name recognition.

I don't think anyone on this thread was suggesting that
someone make a movie called "THE SILMARILLION" and film the
entire book from the Ainulindale to the War of Wrath. However,
there are certain self-contained stories that would be very good
as movies, regardless of the fact that they are presented in the
book in a way that doesn't appeal to people as much as the way
the story of LOTR is presented.

To return to my Philip K. Dick analogy, I don't much like
reading PKD novels. They're too unsettling and jarring; it's
like reading a normal SF novel with someone standing behind you
and whacking you in the head every once in a while. However,
Fancher/Peoples/Scott managed to adapt and film _Do Androids
Dream..._ as _Blade Runner_ very effectively, keeping the edge
but removing the whack-in-the-head factor. (And changing the
overall focus of the work as well, though that's not an issue
here.)

I can certainly see Zacharias Kunuk (dir. of "Atanarjuat")
filming the story of Turin, or Neil Jordan (dir. of "The Company
of Wolves") filming the story of Beren and Luthien, in a
cinematic way that was faithful to the original story and that
also brought in the viewers.

--Jamie. (nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita)
andrews .uwo } Merge these two lines to obtain my e-mail address.
@csd .ca } (Unsolicited "bulk" e-mail costs everyone.)

[nmstevens]

Post by Jamie Andrews; real address @ bottom of message
NMS, I'm not really sure what you're arguing here.
I thought that you were arguing that
(a) The fact that fewer people have bought Silm than LOTR
indicates that the vast majority of people who have read
Silm think that Silm is boring; and
(b) The fact that fewer people have bought Silm than LOTR, plus
the fact that Silm is boring, is why no movie based on Silm
will ever be made.
I was arguing against both of those points.

Post by nmstevens
That may be true -- but since the number of copies that most fantasy
novels -- other than LOTR has sold is generally very small (compared
to general bestseller type numbers) -- it's no trick to sell more than
"most" -

It's also no trick to sell substantially less than LOTR,
since it's one of the best-selling books ever.

Post by nmstevens
There's clearly a certain number of people who like it -- maybe even
who love it -- but most, I'm afraid, don't.

Again, I have to question whether the fact that fewer
people bought Silm than LOTR supports the view that "most people
don't like it", if that phrase is to be interpreted in some way
that is relevant to whether movies could be made based on it.
I would agree with the statement that most people who have
read Silm did not find the reading of it as enjoyable as the
reading of LOTR. This is probably why it doesn't sell as well
as LOTR. But this is a long way from saying that Silm is in
some absolute sense boring or unfilmable.

I'm not sure how any work can in any sense be judged to be
"absolutely" anything.

But I don't think that I would be far wrong were I to say that it is a
pretty common judgement on the part of the readers (or attempted
readers) of the Silmarillion that it is, as works of fantasy go --
pretty turgid and slow going.

Post by Jamie Andrews; real address @ bottom of message
[schnipp]

Post by nmstevens
But the "Silmarillion" is not part of that name recognition. For the
overwhelming majority of people you would have to explain what it is
-- and the cold, cruel fact is -- nobody would sit still for a version
of the Silmarillion with "The Hobbit" as yet unmade - which, unlike
the Silmarillion, is a direct prequel to LOTR, features a number of
the same characters, and *has* the comparable name recognition.

I don't think anyone on this thread was suggesting that
someone make a movie called "THE SILMARILLION" and film the
entire book from the Ainulindale to the War of Wrath. However,
there are certain self-contained stories that would be very good
as movies, regardless of the fact that they are presented in the
book in a way that doesn't appeal to people as much as the way
the story of LOTR is presented.
To return to my Philip K. Dick analogy, I don't much like
reading PKD novels. They're too unsettling and jarring; it's
like reading a normal SF novel with someone standing behind you
and whacking you in the head every once in a while. However,
Fancher/Peoples/Scott managed to adapt and film _Do Androids
Dream..._ as _Blade Runner_ very effectively, keeping the edge
but removing the whack-in-the-head factor. (And changing the
overall focus of the work as well, though that's not an issue
here.)
I can certainly see Zacharias Kunuk (dir. of "Atanarjuat")
filming the story of Turin, or Neil Jordan (dir. of "The Company
of Wolves") filming the story of Beren and Luthien, in a
cinematic way that was faithful to the original story and that
also brought in the viewers.

You seem to be confusing two very different issues. One is whether, in
principle, an adaption might be effectively achieved -- that is, could
one end up with a "good" movie -- good in some aesthetic sense.

Who knows? Maybe yes, maybe no. It depends on the scripts, depends on
the director. I'm certainly not suggesting that it isn't possible that
some section of the Silm couldn't be adapted into an "aesthetically"
effective story.

The issue is whether such a thing would ever be done -- and I'm saying
that it's extremely unlikely that it's ever going to be.

That's because the issue that seems central to you -- would this or
that piece of the Silmarillion make a "good story" -- isn't what Bob
Shaye at New Line is going to be thinking about. That's not the basis
upon which he is going to be making his decision.

If you say to him -- "How about "The Hobbit" -- that's clearly a much
easier question -- it's about whether they can get the rights -- will
Jackson be willing to do it after Kong - Is Ian Holm young enough to
play the young Bilbo?

If they can answer those questions satisfactorily, then they'll
probably do it -- because there is clearly enough pre-existing
interest in a version of the Hobbit to justify it.

But if the question moves to the Silmarillion it becomes a whole other
question. Most people -- that is, the majority of the movie-going
audience -- has never even heard of it. Thus no pre-existing demand
for it. Then you start looking at the how the book itself is generally
viewed -- and it isn't held in particularly high regard (sorry, it
ain't). And that, unlike LOTR, it consists of a whole bunch of
disconnected myths that couldn't be put together in a single coherent
movie or series of movies. Thus, one couldn't really make *a* movie
called "The Silmarillion" or a trilogy called "The Silmarillion"
without profoundly altering the underlying material -- virtually
writing a whole new thing.

Now, I understand that you're suggesting something else -- but this is
the thought process that the head of the studio has to go through --
because it's not as if he can simply buy one tale out of the book --
he's got to buy the whole thing.

And suppose somebody says, "Well, what we can do is simply take
several of the stories out of this long book, make them as separate
movies and just throw the rest of it away."

Well, do the different stories have the same characters -- can we
connect them, so that the "several" movies can be linked as a trilogy
that we can call "The Silmarillion"? Well -- no, not really.

Do people know these stories? Are they popular? Has anybody heard of
them?

Well, people who've read The Silmarillion know them.

Like what?

Well, there's the story of Beren and Luthien.

What's that about?

Well, it's about this elfen princess who falls in love with a mortal
man and then she has to give up her immortality --

Um -- you mean sort of like Arwen and Aragorn? You mean we'd make an
entire movie that would be about this one sub-plot that we had in Lord
of the Rings?

You see, these are the kind of conversations that actually happen.
Because, you see, for us to sit here and argue about it costs us
nothing -- but to buy the rights to the Silmarillion would, given the
success of LOTR, probably cost Bob Shaye around million bucks. To make
another movie on the scale of one of the LOTR films would run around
80 to 100 million -- minimally -- that's presuming that they take
advantage of all of the stuff that's already been built for the
previous movies.

And presuming that this is movie number five -- because no way would
they do it before doing the Hobbit -- there's absolutely no guarantee
that people won't be "elved" out.

And the simple fact is -- the kind of audience familiarity (and thus
guaranteed return) that made sense of the decision to make "LOTR" --
and which makes sense of doing the Hobbit -- isn't really there by the
time you get to "The Silmarillion" -- the investment in digging the
mine stays about the same -- but frankly, the quality of the ore, and
thus the potential return on your investment, has really started to
decline.

NMS

[Jim Deutch]

Post by nmstevens
You seem to be confusing two very different issues. One is whether, in
principle, an adaption might be effectively achieved -- that is, could
one end up with a "good" movie -- good in some aesthetic sense.

Certainly, one could, entirely independent of the merit of the
original source material. The sword cuts both ways, of course. The
upcoming "I, Robot" movie has exactly one thing in common with the
collection of stories: they share the title. That's it. The movie is
reportedly not connected with Asimov's eponymous book in any way.

All your carefully-reasoned argument falls away in the reality of
big-time marketing. If the Tolkien estate ever agrees to sell the
rights, or copyright expires, virtually anything could happen: a
"Silmarillion" movie that has nothing to do with the book, or,
conversely, a not-at-all-disguised rip-off that /claims/ to have
nothing to do with the book, or anything in between.

Post by nmstevens
The issue is whether such a thing would ever be done -- and I'm saying
that it's extremely unlikely that it's ever going to be.

Well, I agree with that, as far as the next couple of decades go. I
would never, however, claim any prediction farther into the future
than that.

Jim Deutch (Jimbo the Cat)

[nmstevens]

Post by Jim Deutch

Post by nmstevens
You seem to be confusing two very different issues. One is whether, in
principle, an adaption might be effectively achieved -- that is, could
one end up with a "good" movie -- good in some aesthetic sense.

Certainly, one could, entirely independent of the merit of the
original source material. The sword cuts both ways, of course. The
upcoming "I, Robot" movie has exactly one thing in common with the
collection of stories: they share the title. That's it. The movie is
reportedly not connected with Asimov's eponymous book in any way.
All your carefully-reasoned argument falls away in the reality of
big-time marketing. If the Tolkien estate ever agrees to sell the
rights, or copyright expires, virtually anything could happen: a
"Silmarillion" movie that has nothing to do with the book, or,
conversely, a not-at-all-disguised rip-off that /claims/ to have
nothing to do with the book, or anything in between.

I don't see how that could make my "carefully-reasoned argument" fall
away -- since that, in essence *is* my argument -- that the
acquisition of LOTR was essentially market-driven, that the
acquisition of the "The Hobbit" in large measure, will likewise be
market-driven, and that likewise, the *failure* of the Silmarillion to
be bought and made, will be a marketing decision.

Just as with "I, Robot" -- what was marketable about the project --
Asimov's name -- the three laws of robotics, and the title, "I, Robot"
-- and that's pretty much all that's going to make it from the book to
the screen.

Post by Jim Deutch

Post by nmstevens
The issue is whether such a thing would ever be done -- and I'm saying
that it's extremely unlikely that it's ever going to be.

Well, I agree with that, as far as the next couple of decades go. I
would never, however, claim any prediction farther into the future
than that.
Jim Deutch (Jimbo the Cat)

Well, somehow a trend toward a worldwide mass audience craving for
hundred million dollar high fantasy of the "Silmarillion" sort isn't
one that I would be inclined to predict any time in the life of any
generation currently drawing breath.

NMS

[John Graas]

<snip>

Post by nmstevens

Post by Jamie Andrews; real address @ bottom of message
I don't think anyone on this thread was suggesting that
someone make a movie called "THE SILMARILLION" and film the
entire book from the Ainulindale to the War of Wrath. However,
there are certain self-contained stories that would be very good
as movies, regardless of the fact that they are presented in the
book in a way that doesn't appeal to people as much as the way
the story of LOTR is presented.
To return to my Philip K. Dick analogy, I don't much like
reading PKD novels. They're too unsettling and jarring; it's
like reading a normal SF novel with someone standing behind you
and whacking you in the head every once in a while. However,
Fancher/Peoples/Scott managed to adapt and film _Do Androids
Dream..._ as _Blade Runner_ very effectively, keeping the edge
but removing the whack-in-the-head factor. (And changing the
overall focus of the work as well, though that's not an issue
here.)
I can certainly see Zacharias Kunuk (dir. of "Atanarjuat")
filming the story of Turin, or Neil Jordan (dir. of "The Company
of Wolves") filming the story of Beren and Luthien, in a
cinematic way that was faithful to the original story and that
also brought in the viewers.

You seem to be confusing two very different issues. One is whether, in
principle, an adaption might be effectively achieved -- that is, could
one end up with a "good" movie -- good in some aesthetic sense.
Who knows? Maybe yes, maybe no. It depends on the scripts, depends on
the director. I'm certainly not suggesting that it isn't possible that
some section of the Silm couldn't be adapted into an "aesthetically"
effective story.
The issue is whether such a thing would ever be done -- and I'm saying
that it's extremely unlikely that it's ever going to be.
That's because the issue that seems central to you -- would this or
that piece of the Silmarillion make a "good story" -- isn't what Bob
Shaye at New Line is going to be thinking about. That's not the basis
upon which he is going to be making his decision.

<snip>

(Hoping that I didn't snip to much) I think that the marketing of
multiple sub-stories from Sil wouldn't be that difficult. "The Lay of
Luthien, from the World of LOTR" would be an easy way to catch the
movie going public's interest.

And, hoping that I'm not misremembering the relationships too much,
brief appearances of Galadriel with voice-overs to introduce various
stories from Sil would tie all the stories into the one, true reality
of Middle Earth.

I think these would sell. Each story would have fresh worlds and
locations to create and present, the relationships and characters in
the stories are strong and interesting, and action scenes abound to
pull in the general ticket paying public.

jdg




**** Remove _spamme_ from e-mail address to respond. ****

"You have to learn WHY things work on a Starship."
-- "Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan"

[nmstevens]

Post by John Graas
<snip>

Post by nmstevens

Post by Jamie Andrews; real address @ bottom of message
I don't think anyone on this thread was suggesting that
someone make a movie called "THE SILMARILLION" and film the
entire book from the Ainulindale to the War of Wrath. However,
there are certain self-contained stories that would be very good
as movies, regardless of the fact that they are presented in the
book in a way that doesn't appeal to people as much as the way
the story of LOTR is presented.
To return to my Philip K. Dick analogy, I don't much like
reading PKD novels. They're too unsettling and jarring; it's
like reading a normal SF novel with someone standing behind you
and whacking you in the head every once in a while. However,
Fancher/Peoples/Scott managed to adapt and film _Do Androids
Dream..._ as _Blade Runner_ very effectively, keeping the edge
but removing the whack-in-the-head factor. (And changing the
overall focus of the work as well, though that's not an issue
here.)
I can certainly see Zacharias Kunuk (dir. of "Atanarjuat")
filming the story of Turin, or Neil Jordan (dir. of "The Company
of Wolves") filming the story of Beren and Luthien, in a
cinematic way that was faithful to the original story and that
also brought in the viewers.

You seem to be confusing two very different issues. One is whether, in
principle, an adaption might be effectively achieved -- that is, could
one end up with a "good" movie -- good in some aesthetic sense.
Who knows? Maybe yes, maybe no. It depends on the scripts, depends on
the director. I'm certainly not suggesting that it isn't possible that
some section of the Silm couldn't be adapted into an "aesthetically"
effective story.
The issue is whether such a thing would ever be done -- and I'm saying
that it's extremely unlikely that it's ever going to be.
That's because the issue that seems central to you -- would this or
that piece of the Silmarillion make a "good story" -- isn't what Bob
Shaye at New Line is going to be thinking about. That's not the basis
upon which he is going to be making his decision.

<snip>
(Hoping that I didn't snip to much) I think that the marketing of
multiple sub-stories from Sil wouldn't be that difficult. "The Lay of
Luthien, from the World of LOTR" would be an easy way to catch the
movie going public's interest.
And, hoping that I'm not misremembering the relationships too much,
brief appearances of Galadriel with voice-overs to introduce various
stories from Sil would tie all the stories into the one, true reality
of Middle Earth.
I think these would sell. Each story would have fresh worlds and
locations to create and present, the relationships and characters in
the stories are strong and interesting, and action scenes abound to
pull in the general ticket paying public.
jdg

The strongest argument one can possibly raise in opposition is that
these stories, individually or collectively *didn't* sell in print --
compared to LOTR, the Silmarillion has always been a very
disappointing runner up. Even in recent days, compared to the new vast
demand for the LOTR in the aftermath of the movies' success -- new
readers are not rushing out and buying up copies of the Silmarillion.

If Tolkien's own words aren't strong enough to pull in Tolkien's own
fans in comparable numbers, how then are those words, transferred to
the screen, in whatever fashion, going to bring in comparable numbers
of people to LOTR who've never even heard or read them?

In other words, the exec who goes in to pitch buying and making the
Silmarillion is going to have to sell the idea that the adaptation of
the book is going to do far better business, when made into a movie,
than the original book ever did -- as a book, as compared to the
original series.

That is going to be a very tough argument to make convincingly.

NMS