Thread: Silmarilion TV series

Originally Posted by Floin

A TV series would be great, but then again...imagine the end... no, it would be to much. The five battles of Beleriand and the last great battle would be impossible to do.

I think a movie series like Harry Potter could do it. Though I wonder how the start of the novel could be done. Remember the Silmarillion would be boring as hell to the average viewer. They would have to do some things to not make the movie drag. The pace would be slow, and that's not a bad thing, but they can't have 3 hours feels like 10. So what do we have that can make things...exciting...

Nobody could make 'the Silmarillion' into a movie, it's a diverse collection of tales set over a long span of time. It lends itself only to something episodic, and even then there'd be a problem because for a lot of it there's little continuity of characters, nobody for the audience to follow. Something like 'Tales of Middle-earth' where they did the major legends might work (say, Beren and Luthien, Turin's adventures) but a further problem is the 'not another Elf' thing. Way too many of the characters are Elves.

Visual Effects can make the creation of Ea and Arda *amazing* to watch. Plus the music of the Ainur and the battle with Melkor.

Nobody in their right mind would attempt the mythological bits because that doesn't work for a modern audience (Tolkien himself said that you couldn't do that sort of thing any more). That's especially the case for the Music of the Ainur, because it can't be visualised. The Ainur had no forms to begin with, remember? It could only be shown in the abstract, if at all.

Tulkas fighting Melkor would be another good one. The destruction of the lamps too, that was a huge thing really. The battle at Uttumno and Ungoliant...

Case in point: the Lamps. That sort of mythological stuff would not play well; neither would the myth about the making of the Sun and Moon. I'd suggest that the obvious starting point, if there were to be one, would be shortly prior to Melkor's escape from Valinor but then again, the problem is that that would require showing 'gods' and the Elves' 'heaven' directly and that would be in great peril of looking naff. Valinor is better imagined than portrayed, I think.

To be honest, I take back what I said. There is some very good potential for exciting parts. I would love to see the Kinslaying and the battle of Feanor with Melkor.

I think you mean Fingolfin, there. Feanor never gets to confront Morgoth, he gets beaten to a pulp by the Balrogs.

Further problem: thanks to the movies, everyone expects Balrogs to be simply huge and at various points in the tales, there are not just one but a whole bunch of them around at once. When they come to drive off Ungoliant, for example, or when they take down Feanor, or during the Fall of Gondolin. It'd be a bit much, that would.

Oh, and one more thing: Vingilot. A flying ship made of glass. Again, a bit heavy on the mythological stuff.

Nobody could make 'the Silmarillion' into a movie, it's a diverse collection of tales set over a long span of time. It lends itself only to something episodic, and even then there'd be a problem because for a lot of it there's little continuity of characters, nobody for the audience to follow. Something like 'Tales of Middle-earth' where they did the major legends might work (say, Beren and Luthien, Turin's adventures) but a further problem is the 'not another Elf' thing. Way too many of the characters are Elves.

If they could make the Lord of the Rings possible without cutting out half the movie or making it a snooze fest I think someone could be creative enough to make the Silmarillion. Setting out a timeline would be the first thing in mind, then play it by ear. I would think they would create an imagenary character though, an elf ofcourse...but I wouldn't know how that would work. They could always have a narrator though...

Nobody in their right mind would attempt the mythological bits because that doesn't work for a modern audience (Tolkien himself said that you couldn't do that sort of thing any more). That's especially the case for the Music of the Ainur, because it can't be visualised. The Ainur had no forms to begin with, remember? It could only be shown in the abstract, if at all.

Tolkien said the same thing about LOTR. The Ainur did not have any forms to begin with, and the whole creation would be a display of lights and flashes of colours. No one said 'exciting' meant 'action.' The whole beauty of the creation of Ea via visual effects can be done with todays technology. And the music of Ainur would be hard to make for any master composer...still, it's better than watching a mute display of lights, flashes and colours...

Case in point: the Lamps. That sort of mythological stuff would not play well; neither would the myth about the making of the Sun and Moon. I'd suggest that the obvious starting point, if there were to be one, would be shortly prior to Melkor's escape from Valinor but then again, the problem is that that would require showing 'gods' and the Elves' 'heaven' directly and that would be in great peril of looking naff. Valinor is better imagined than portrayed, I think.

Nearly every piece of fantasy literature is better imagined than potrayed. But in cinema you can't pull of a Shakespear and get some guy to tell you to imagine things (Henry the V no?)

I think you mean Fingolfin, there. Feanor never gets to confront Morgoth, he gets beaten to a pulp by the Balrogs.

Further problem: thanks to the movies, everyone expects Balrogs to be simply huge and at various points in the tales, there are not just one but a whole bunch of them around at once. When they come to drive off Ungoliant, for example, or when they take down Feanor, or during the Fall of Gondolin. It'd be a bit much, that would.

Oh, and one more thing: Vingilot. A flying ship made of glass. Again, a bit heavy on the mythological stuff.

I actually did mean Feanor, but I was generalising to much. You know like when people say 'Hadrian built a wall.' He didn't build it...he just told guys to do it.

And with the Balrogs...well the movie did it's own Balrog great I think, even if there is a tonne of speculation with wings etc...still it was a pretty horrific thing. Though it wasn't entierly true to Tolkien's descriptions, it was a 'creative' improvement in my opinion. The Balrogs were in greater numbers ofcourse, but what is stopping them from creating different ones? Look at Tree-Beard. No one else expected to see 1000 clones of Tree-beard, if people expect the same from Balrogs well they will be suprised. Not everyone who watches cinema is dull minded, they'll accept it for what it is, I'm sure.

Look at the 'Hobbit' for example. Some of the Dwarves look wrong! But why is this? People obviously say it's for the 'youth' because everything is blamed on 'the youth' our days no? It's not! There are a bunch of dwarves, and you will spend 3 hours of your life getting to know them. How is that possible when they all look like Gimli? They need to look iconic, have some visual differences. Not just some variations of colour, but something to match their personality aswell.

And what of the flying ship? How is that too mythological?

Point being that if a film is made, the budget would be huge, probably larger than Avatar's. That's why it will probably never come out.

WETA digital might be able to pull of STUNNING visual effects cheaper than your average company, but it would still be an immesne budget.

Unless they make the Silmarillion CGI, similar to this...

But it would still be very costly...very...very costly.

I go back & forth with whether I'd like to see Silmarillion on-screen. I honestly don't know how you make a movie with the cost needed and market it to a big enough audience without having a set of likeable, relatable characters to sit through the several full-length features it would require.

Also, the beings of the First Age were far beyond anything that we could imagine. Their beauty, their strength, the power of language, music, thought... Whole orc hordes fleeing from the sight of one particularly P.O.'d human/elf. Luthien bringing down the walls of a Sauron's first Dark Tower with her song. It all works within the story. On-screen I fear that it would just look like one plot device after another.

Going back further, just think of the Two Trees. Remember, the Sun and Moon are nothing but the weak, last fragments of the light of those Trees. How do you make something on-screen that dazzles and moves an audience more than sun and moon??

All that said, I do think there are ways to tell pieces of the Silmarillion story -- the key pieces that lay the foundation of JRRT's whole Middle-Earth. Some part of the Kinslaying & Exile; Beren & Luthien; The Fall of Gondolin; the Voyage of Earendel. Some of that could make for real movie magic.

But in the end, the story is sad. Disastrously, hopelessly sad. I mean, even Earendel & Elwing's sacrifice to save Middle-Earth from Morgoth results in the ultimate destruction of the most blessed, holy, and stunning lands of Middle-Earth. After you've spent, what, 4-5 years watching movie after movie leading to the climax, do you want to leave the theatre with the world in ruin and the sad remnant of the High Elves crying and wandering amid the wreckage?

Imagine watching 7 Harry Potters only to have Harry, Hermione, Ron, and most of your other favorites lying dead in pools of blood amid the crumbled wreck of Hogwarts as the credits roll. Bye, thanks for your time, please buy the soundtrack!

Originally Posted by Floin

If they could make the Lord of the Rings possible without cutting out half the movie or making it a snooze fest I think someone could be creative enough to make the Silmarillion. Setting out a timeline would be the first thing in mind, then play it by ear. I would think they would create an imagenary character though, an elf ofcourse...but I wouldn't know how that would work. They could always have a narrator though...

...

The core plot of LOTR takes place over the course of a few months. The Sil spans nearly six hundred years. Bit of a difference, that. Likewise, LOTR is one coherent narrative whereas the Sil is a collection of tales. Again, a bit of a difference there.

Tolkien said the same thing about LOTR. The Ainur did not have any forms to begin with, and the whole creation would be a display of lights and flashes of colours. No one said 'exciting' meant 'action.' The whole beauty of the creation of Ea via visual effects can be done with todays technology. And the music of Ainur would be hard to make for any master composer...still, it's better than watching a mute display of lights, flashes and colours...

No, he did not. He specifically said that you can't 'do' mythology with a modern audience, and that was because most people don't think of the world in mythological terms any more: we know it isn't flat, for example. Having, say, the story of the Sun and Moon from the Sil presented as written would seem bizarre. LOTR lacks those outright mythological elements; it's a constructed legend, instead, and hence far easier to portray.

Nearly every piece of fantasy literature is better imagined than potrayed. But in cinema you can't pull of a Shakespear and get some guy to tell you to imagine things (Henry the V no?)

It's a matter of degree: the more mythological it gets, the better it is to tell rather than to show. Some things are essentially unfilmable by their very nature and will remain so no matter how much technology is thrown at the problem.

I actually did mean Feanor, but I was generalising to much. You know like when people say 'Hadrian built a wall.' He didn't build it...he just told guys to do it.

Whatever, nobody gets to confront Morgoth in person until Fingolfin challenges him to a duel. Morgoth just lurks in Angband and lets his minions do all the fighting.

And with the Balrogs...well the movie did it's own Balrog great I think, even if there is a tonne of speculation with wings etc...still it was a pretty horrific thing. Though it wasn't entierly true to Tolkien's descriptions, it was a 'creative' improvement in my opinion. The Balrogs were in greater numbers ofcourse, but what is stopping them from creating different ones? Look at Tree-Beard. No one else expected to see 1000 clones of Tree-beard, if people expect the same from Balrogs well they will be suprised. Not everyone who watches cinema is dull minded, they'll accept it for what it is, I'm sure.

The fact remains, the Balrog in FOTR was hugely over the top. In the book, it walked into the Chamber of Mazarbul after the Fellowship had left - something it could not possibly have done if it was supposed to be the size it was shown to be in the movie. Tolkien imagined embodied Maiar as being exceedingly tall rather than gigantic.

Look at the 'Hobbit' for example. Some of the Dwarves look wrong! But why is this? People obviously say it's for the 'youth' because everything is blamed on 'the youth' our days no? It's not! There are a bunch of dwarves, and you will spend 3 hours of your life getting to know them. How is that possible when they all look like Gimli? They need to look iconic, have some visual differences. Not just some variations of colour, but something to match their personality aswell.

Yes, some of the Dwarves look dubious because in several cases their beards aren't long enough (*cough* Longbeards *cough*), and some of them don't even have proper beards (Bombur for one as he's only got muttonchop whiskers, and Kili for another - he's got more designer stubble than anything else, and looks out of place - he's obviously there as the token prettyboy). That's not being iconic, that's simply not looking the part.

And what of the flying ship? How is that too mythological?

A flying ship apparently made of glass and mithril, so that it'd be quite amazingly shiny as well as being a flying ship, and that sort of bling is usually only associated with myth. Meanwhile, the audience would be wondering quite what held it up. Oh, and it'd have to zoom around, fighting Morgoth's dragons and again, that would more than likely look naff. That whole business with the War of Wrath would be in weird contrast to what had preceded it because of its decidedly mythological character.

Point being that if a film is made, the budget would be huge, probably larger than Avatar's. That's why it will probably never come out.

It's not the budget I'm thinking of - it's that the material would be far more problematic to film than you're allowing for, in terms of the images to be presented, the choice of characters, the length of time over which the stories are spread out, the predominance of Elves and so on.

Indeed trying to twist blatantly mythological events (like Earendil in his ship somehow defeating Ancalagon in the air) into a format which doesn't look daft and can be digested by the average viewer would be nigh impossible. However there are ways around these things. In this example we'd have the main battle, followed by the unleashing of the dragon-host which causes chaos for a while and then the narrator could come in at the end of the battle saying how it ended while Earendil and his eagle-allies are shown flying towards the battle (much like how at the end of the RotK film we hear Frodo commenting on what happened next). In other words leave out that part of the battle and leave it to the imagination, as it does in the book.

The Music of the Ainur stuff, and perhaps the stuff at the beginning of Arda before the Lamps fell, would have to be done in similar fashion as to how the Rings of Power were explained at the beginning of FotR.

Writing off the whole book, which could provide enough content for several films, just because of an occasional event which is too mythological in nature to portray logically would be a complete waste.

The core plot of LOTR takes place over the course of a few months. The Sil spans nearly six hundred years. Bit of a difference, that. Likewise, LOTR is one coherent narrative whereas the Sil is a collection of tales. Again, a bit of a difference there.

I know I know...but your not getting the point. The narrative of the Silmarillion is confusing. But it's managable. Say there is one film dedicated to creation of Ea and then finishing of with the Noldor in Middle-Earth. The age of the two lamps to the age of the trees is a loooong one. But things can be made to summerize. Jackson managed to sum up the most important parts of the second age and the joruney of the Ring in just a few minuets. It can be done again.

No, he did not. He specifically said that you can't 'do' mythology with a modern audience, and that was because most people don't think of the world in mythological terms any more: we know it isn't flat, for example. Having, say, the story of the Sun and Moon from the Sil presented as written would seem bizarre. LOTR lacks those outright mythological elements; it's a constructed legend, instead, and hence far easier to portray.

Apologies, I misunderstood. But now, let's take a step back. You have an age where Arda is flat... now why will not work with a modern audience? Does the bizarre levels range to high? The modern audience would love something like the Silmarillion is has everything a saga needs.

It's a matter of degree: the more mythological it gets, the better it is to tell rather than to show. Some things are essentially unfilmable by their very nature and will remain so no matter how much technology is thrown at the problem.

But this is a film...the audience needs to see something. Of course I'm not saying we should have Liam Neeson play Eru and get Christopher Lee as Manwe...what I'm trying to say is that it can be done without showing any casting at all. Just one voice for explaining what's going and and visual effects to keep those who aren't interested distracted. That alone can do it. Like the flame Eru created, and the music being made, Arda being formed, the vision Eru set upon the Ainur... alot of things a man with imagination and creativity can do with.

Whatever, nobody gets to confront Morgoth in person until Fingolfin challenges him to a duel. Morgoth just lurks in Angband and lets his minions do all the fighting.

I know...

The fact remains, the Balrog in FOTR was hugely over the top. In the book, it walked into the Chamber of Mazarbul after the Fellowship had left - something it could not possibly have done if it was supposed to be the size it was shown to be in the movie. Tolkien imagined embodied Maiar as being exceedingly tall rather than gigantic.

Well that wouldn't be a problem in the Silmarillion then. If they decide to be inspired by FOTR's Balrog they need not worry. They appear in large fields and huge chambers mostly...well according to my memory.

Yes, some of the Dwarves look dubious because in several cases their beards aren't long enough (*cough* Longbeards *cough*), and some of them don't even have proper beards (Bombur for one as he's only got muttonchop whiskers, and Kili for another - he's got more designer stubble than anything else, and looks out of place - he's obviously there as the token prettyboy). That's not being iconic, that's simply not looking the part.

Apart from Kili (which is obviously there for the fangirls) I think the Dwarves look fine...for cinema. Remember these are lead characters, they have to look the part, even if it goes against Tolkien's lore. Because imagine if it were thirteen of these guys:




I don't think they would look like lead roles to me... it's all about visuals in films, even clothes have a way at defining a character.

A flying ship apparently made of glass and mithril, so that it'd be quite amazingly shiny as well as being a flying ship, and that sort of bling is usually only associated with myth. Meanwhile, the audience would be wondering quite what held it up. Oh, and it'd have to zoom around, fighting Morgoth's dragons and again, that would more than likely look naff. That whole business with the War of Wrath would be in weird contrast to what had preceded it because of its decidedly mythological character.

I think your taking Tolkien's works to literal here. Vingilot in Tolkien's terms would blind the audience (that would be fun to see) but do you think a movie would take everything as literal as the books take it? They would obviously have to change things around to make it presentable.

It's not the budget I'm thinking of - it's that the material would be far more problematic to film than you're allowing for, in terms of the images to be presented, the choice of characters, the length of time over which the stories are spread out, the predominance of Elves and so on.

I know it would be difficult, hell nearly impossible. But it could work. The good thing about it is that each episode goes forward in time, it's not a mish mash between time. Taking that and turning it into a story arch would be the first step. Now what would they have to do in order to tell the whole thing? Make imaginary characters and film their stories similar to 'A game of Thrones.'

Have one character who's great friends with Fingolfin.
Have another another who is a Knight of Gondolin under the command of Ecthellion
Have one who resides in Doriath
And have one who's a friend of the Dwarves

Not entierly like that ofcourse, but you get my idea. If not, then just follow the narrative by the book and with in each step through time have a narration. Like I said the book follows no story arch, but goes forward with time, thats the plus of it. Everything would not go into one film remember, so each film would introduce us to a new sub-plot whilst still following the overall MAJOR story line which is the War of the Silmarils.

Or if you still don't agree then let me say this...

The Children of Hurin? No

Originally Posted by Beleg-Of-Doriath

In other words leave out that part of the battle and leave it to the imagination, as it does in the book.

Originally Posted by Floin

I know I know...but your not getting the point. The narrative of the Silmarillion is confusing. But it's managable. Say there is one film dedicated to creation of Ea and then finishing of with the Noldor in Middle-Earth. The age of the two lamps to the age of the trees is a loooong one. But things can be made to summerize. Jackson managed to sum up the most important parts of the second age and the joruney of the Ring in just a few minuets. It can be done again.

So you'd put all the odd mythological bits in the first film? Instant dead franchise. The prologue to FOTR had a massive battle in it to get the audience's attention, and doing something with the Sil would need something similarly punchy. If it simply has to be from the age of myth before the First Age, then the overthrow of Utumno by the Valar might work. That could then lead into Melkor's captivity in Valinor.

Apologies, I misunderstood. But now, let's take a step back. You have an age where Arda is flat... now why will not work with a modern audience? Does the bizarre levels range to high? The modern audience would love something like the Silmarillion is has everything a saga needs.

Yes, the mythological stuff would be too bizarre for modern taste.

But this is a film...the audience needs to see something. Of course I'm not saying we should have Liam Neeson play Eru and get Christopher Lee as Manwe...what I'm trying to say is that it can be done without showing any casting at all. Just one voice for explaining what's going and and visual effects to keep those who aren't interested distracted. That alone can do it. Like the flame Eru created, and the music being made, Arda being formed, the vision Eru set upon the Ainur... alot of things a man with imagination and creativity can do with.

No, the audience doesn't need to see that part at all. It's not even part of the Quenta Silmarillion, remember. Besides that, it wouldn't play well with the mass audience to have something that abstract right at the beginning of a movie.

Well that wouldn't be a problem in the Silmarillion then. If they decide to be inspired by FOTR's Balrog they need not worry. They appear in large fields and huge chambers mostly...well according to my memory.

You might want to remind yourself of how some of the Balrogs died, as the FOTR movie version of the Balrog actively clashes with that. The Balrogs were never intended to be thought of as gigantic.

Apart from Kili (which is obviously there for the fangirls) I think the Dwarves look fine...for cinema. Remember these are lead characters, they have to look the part, even if it goes against Tolkien's lore.

They do largely look the part, but with some obvious exceptions. Even for cinema.

I think your taking Tolkien's works to literal here. Vingilot in Tolkien's terms would blind the audience (that would be fun to see) but do you think a movie would take everything as literal as the books take it? They would obviously have to change things around to make it presentable.

And so they'd have to make it look more gritty (as is ithe modern style) but still: it's a flying ship. It'd be a massive contrast with the rest.

I know it would be difficult, hell nearly impossible. But it could work. The good thing about it is that each episode goes forward in time, it's not a mish mash between time. Taking that and turning it into a story arch would be the first step. Now what would they have to do in order to tell the whole thing? Make imaginary characters and film their stories similar to 'A game of Thrones.'

You don't just need a story arc, you need persistent characters who people can associate with. And that'd be a problem, because that span of time would mean that persistent characters would have to be Elves, and not everyone would care for that.

The Children of Hurin? No

Yes, that could be filmed (in principle at least); I mentioned Turin's adventures myself, earlier. The same goes for the tale of Beren and Luthien. Those parts of the Sil take place over manageable timescales, they aren't all about Elves, and they've got a ton of highly cinematic stuff apiece. The only thing I would say is that The Children of Hurin is dark, tragic, and at times disturbing. At least there was a happy ending for Beren and Luthien, after everything they'd been through.

The more I think about this the more I'm starting to think it might be possible. It could go something like:

- Everything up to the rise of the Sun and Moon as a narration, with longer segments for more important parts.

- The wars and the tales of iconic characters (though much more concise).

- End with the destruction of Beleriand (mainly because the First Age would be the main focus).

3 hour long film with the core components of the book, all stretched out more in the extended DVD edition.

Originally Posted by Dorothir

3 hour long film with the core components of the book, all stretched out more in the extended DVD edition.

Far too much for a single film. You could have the Children of Hurin as a film unto itself, same with Beren and Luthien. Perhaps with a Battle of Beleriand thrown in to give them more action.

So you'd put all the odd mythological bits in the first film? Instant dead franchise. The prologue to FOTR had a massive battle in it to get the audience's attention, and doing something with the Sil would need something similarly punchy. If it simply has to be from the age of myth before the First Age, then the overthrow of Utumno by the Valar might work. That could then lead into Melkor's captivity in Valinor.

You take things to literal mate I'm just throwing ideas.

Yes, the mythological stuff would be too bizarre for modern taste.

Hmm...I'm not so sure about that. Look at Pan's Labyrinth and Hellboy II. Two different takes at mythology but both very bizzare in their own way. Those two films are universally praised.

Tolkien is a genius, I love the guy for all that he has given me, that guy in my idol. But he said the Lord of the Rings couldn't be done in cinema and apparently says that the Silmarillion would be to bizzare for the modern audience.

We are talking when? The 60's 70's? Maybe... but things have changed since then. The modern audience is what exactly? When people can fall inlove with seven foot blue people, and wish they lived in a planet called Pandora? When things are done right people will accept what it is.

I think your understimating the modern audience as a whole, or pin pointing a minority and labeling the entire thing under them.

No, the audience doesn't need to see that part at all. It's not even part of the Quenta Silmarillion, remember. Besides that, it wouldn't play well with the mass audience to have something that abstract right at the beginning of a movie.

It's in the Silmarillion alright, I think we both know that we are focusing on A (the Ainulindale) to B (the end of the Valaquenta.) That's what I'm specifying in.

And ofcourse you need to introduce the audience to the creation of the world, how it was made, who the bad guys are and why are they are bad guys. That would be very ###### story telling if we were to jump to the elves reaching Aman. It would betray Tolkien fans a great deal (even more than the removal of the Barrow Downs and Tom Bombadil) and it would confuse audiences alot.

Some sort of introduction to the world, whether short or long has to be made.

You might want to remind yourself of how some of the Balrogs died, as the FOTR movie version of the Balrog actively clashes with that. The Balrogs were never intended to be thought of as gigantic.

Good point... a sword fight with a 700 foot creature isn't going to be very fair no? Well I'm sure things can be done to adjust that. Gothmog died at the fountain of Ecthellion. If the Balrogs are going to be potrayed as in FOTR then he could die somewhere else. Preferably somewhere where Ecthellion would have a serious height advantage (the walls maybe? And epic leap of faith onto the Balrog? A minor change in location won't change the fact that Gothmog died and Ecthellion too.) Like I said, not everything has to be done by the books.

And so they'd have to make it look more gritty (as is ithe modern style) but still: it's a flying ship. It'd be a massive contrast with the rest.

There would be no need to go into the other extreme here. It can still be white as snow, and can have 'flash' effects on it. But not to the point that it blinds the audience.

You don't just need a story arc, you need persistent characters who people can associate with. And that'd be a problem, because that span of time would mean that persistent characters would have to be Elves, and not everyone would care for that.

Then make a likable character... maybe even a few. Like I said, imagenary characters are the way to go if a film would ever be made. Tolkien's own characters aren't very fleshed out other than a select few.

And if a person hates elves because he found that stereotype of 'pretty' boys within Legolas, I'm sure Feanor would change his mind. Hell Fingolfin would be enough to make any Dwarf say "what a guy!"

Originally Posted by Beleg-Of-Doriath

Far too much for a single film. You could have the Children of Hurin as a film unto itself, same with Beren and Luthien. Perhaps with a Battle of Beleriand thrown in to give them more action.

I don't think Beren and Luthien's story would do well in the cinema. It's a chick flick...and pretty cliche. Beautiful...but cliche. Turin's story would sell much better methinks. It's dark, has naked chicks, it has Dragons, a sacking of an entire city...

Yep, the kids love that!

Sorry for my excessive use of 'modern English' (or whatever the term is.) I know they aren't the best thing to use for arguements. It's hard to take anyone serious when they refer to a grand tale such as Beren and Luthien a 'chick flick.'

Originally Posted by Floin

I don't think Beren and Luthien's story would do well in the cinema. It's a chick flick.

I dunno. There's Huan, the ravaging hound of the Valar. Luthien going nuts on Sauron's Tower, the journey into the heart of Angband, Beren prying the Silmaril from Morgoth's own crown. The warg that devours Beren's hand. Plus the last recorded mortal deed, Beren killing the Lord of Nogrod and recovering the stolen Silmaril. Seems like there's plenty of backside-kicking to satisfy the testosterone crowd.

It really could make a fabulous stand-alone story. With, if not a happy, then at least not a hopelessly sad ending. I'd watch that.

Originally Posted by Floin

You take things to literal mate I'm just throwing ideas.

Odd ideas, mate, hence my reply.

Hmm...I'm not so sure about that. Look at Pan's Labyrinth and Hellboy II. Two different takes at mythology but both very bizzare in their own way. Those two films are universally praised.

Tolkien is a genius, I love the guy for all that he has given me, that guy in my idol. But he said the Lord of the Rings couldn't be done in cinema and apparently says that the Silmarillion would be to bizzare for the modern audience.

Yes, two strange (but not dissimilar) takes on myth, legend and folk tales, and the thing is that both of those are very unlike Tolkien. It's also very weak to argue that just because LOTR has been filmed, that the Sil could be as well because the two are different in style and content.

We are talking when? The 60's 70's? Maybe... but things have changed since then. The modern audience is what exactly? When people can fall inlove with seven foot blue people, and wish they lived in a planet called Pandora? When things are done right people will accept what it is.

Yes, things have indeed changed: movies now include fewer mythological elements, not more, and there's that modern emphasis on grittiness instead. Look at Troy or the remake of Clash of the Titans. Where films based on Greek myth and legend would once have shown the gods of Olympus, now they don't and that's true even when the original story they're based on had the gods directly involved. So, what does that suggest about the modern audience? And that's why I don't think showing Valinor would work.

As for Avatar that was science fiction, nothing mythological (in fact, if they'd left out the floating rocks it'd have been hard sci-fi). It's stuff like having a flat earth lit up by enormous lamps on pillars that simply would not play with a modern audience. The only ready place for stuff like that is in parody, like Terry Pratchett's Discworld.

I think your understimating the modern audience as a whole, or pin pointing a minority and labeling the entire thing under them.

Not at all: I'm going by what people tend to say who've tried to read the Sil and failed. That mythological stuff at the beginning genuinely puts people off.

It's in the Silmarillion alright, I think we both know that we are focusing on A (the Ainulindale) to B (the end of the Valaquenta.) That's what I'm specifying in.

I said the Quenta Silmarillion, which starts after the Ainulindale and the Valaquenta.

And ofcourse you need to introduce the audience to the creation of the world, how it was made, who the bad guys are and why are they are bad guys. That would be very ###### story telling if we were to jump to the elves reaching Aman. It would betray Tolkien fans a great deal (even more than the removal of the Barrow Downs and Tom Bombadil) and it would confuse audiences alot.

Oh, poo. You don't need to tell the whole story: like I said, the creation myth is NOT part of the History of the Silmarils. Feel free to have a look in the book.

Some sort of introduction to the world, whether short or long has to be made.

LOTR worked perfectly well without an exhaustive introduction, and so could anything based on some part of the Sil if it were done in the same style we saw in the prologue to the movie of FOTR.

Good point... a sword fight with a 700 foot creature isn't going to be very fair no? Well I'm sure things can be done to adjust that. Gothmog died at the fountain of Ecthellion. If the Balrogs are going to be potrayed as in FOTR then he could die somewhere else. Preferably somewhere where Ecthellion would have a serious height advantage (the walls maybe? And epic leap of faith onto the Balrog? A minor change in location won't change the fact that Gothmog died and Ecthellion too.) Like I said, not everything has to be done by the books.

The point was that there'd be a clash between movie fan expectations and the need to make the Balrogs a more reasonable size in order for the narrative of the tales that make up the Sil to work. That'd already make for three (not one, three) encounters with Balrogs that would have to be rewritten, that I can think of. Plus any impact on the great battles.

There would be no need to go into the other extreme here. It can still be white as snow, and can have 'flash' effects on it. But not to the point that it blinds the audience.

Sorry to shout but IT'D STILL BE A FLYING SHIP, when the majority of the narrative of the Sil has people trudging about or riding horses. Sudden changes like that can lose an audience.

I'm not sure how the audience would take to an Eagle the size of an airliner, either...

And if a person hates elves because he found that stereotype of 'pretty' boys within Legolas, I'm sure Feanor would change his mind. Hell Fingolfin would be enough to make any Dwarf say "what a guy!"

I think it would get wearing on the audience to have the majority of the characters being Elves.

Originally Posted by Floin

Turin's story would sell much better methinks. It's dark, has naked chicks, it has Dragons, a sacking of an entire city...

Yep, the kids love that!

Hmm... so kids love stories which involve the hero marrying his sister (while under the influence of a dragon-spell, of course, but incest is still heavy stuff), getting her with child (even worse!), and both of them subsequently committing suicide? To call it 'dark' is one heck of an understatement, because of how Morgoth's curse hangs over the protagonist the whole time, not to mention the exceedingly grim things that happen to everybody else. It's the darkest tale in the entire book, and that's saying something. (If it were up for grabs I'd love to see what Guillermo del Toro could make of it, though!)

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Hmm... so kids love stories which involve the hero marrying his sister (while under the influence of a dragon-spell, of course, but incest is still heavy stuff), getting her with child (even worse!), and both of them subsequently committing suicide? To call it 'dark' is one heck of an understatement, because of how Morgoth's curse hangs over the protagonist the whole time, not to mention the exceedingly grim things that happen to everybody else. It's the darkest tale in the entire book, and that's saying something. (If it were up for grabs I'd love to see what Guillermo del Toro could make of it, though!)

Again with the literal stuff! ><

What I meant was that people in general love dark tales, especially nowadays with 'A song of Ice and Fire' becoming the next 'Lord of the Rings.'

Yes, things have indeed changed: movies now include fewer mythological elements, not more, and there's that modern emphasis on grittiness instead. Look at Troy or the remake of Clash of the Titans. Where films based on Greek myth and legend would once have shown the gods of Olympus, now they don't and that's true even when the original story they're based on had the gods directly involved. So, what does that suggest about the modern audience? And that's why I don't think showing Valinor would work.

Well grittiness is pretty much covered in Middle Earth... but now Valinor. What of it? It's vast it's beautiful, it has two trees that shine light. If they show it, it doesn't really have to be for that long. But the West is a really important part of the Silmarillion, especially at the end. To tell the story of the saga they need to introduced to it. It's not like the audience will scream for blood for the time Valinor is on. Neither do they need to follow the exact descriptions of the elves. They can cut out all the dancing and singing they do, infact, all they need to focus on really is the Noldor. Sure tell us who the Ainur are, the Vanayar and the Teleri. But the Noldor will get the spotlight.

Not at all: I'm going by what people tend to say who've tried to read the Sil and failed. That mythological stuff at the beginning genuinely puts people off.

And do these people enjoy fantasy at all? Reading the Sil and watching the Sil would be different experiences I think. Like reading LOTR and watching it.

I said the Quenta Silmarillion, which starts after the Ainulindale and the Valaquenta.

Which edition do you have? Mine goes says something like this in the first page.


JRR TOLKIEN

QUENTA SILMARILLION
(The history of the Silmarils)

together with

AINULINDALE
(The music of the Ainur)

and

VALAQUENTA
(account of the Valar)

to which is appended

AKALLABETH
(The Downfall of Numenor)

and

OF THE RINGS OF POWER AND
THE THIRD AGE

Still I believe you since QUENTA must be 'tale' or 'account' or some other random synonym. So I used to the wrong one hehe, my apologies.

Oh, poo. You don't need to tell the whole story: like I said, the creation myth is NOT part of the History of the Silmarils. Feel free to have a look in the book.

Let me buy a copy since I'm obviously trolling all of you

Anyway, I still feel that yes, you have to, or atleast account the Valaquenta. Just the keypoints. Maybe the creation of Ea is just some personal preference, but I still stand by my point, a prolouge of some sorts is needed. I still remember watching LOTR for the first time and wondering "whats the West? Where the hell is she going?" This was before I made my shrine to Tolkien though...

LOTR worked perfectly well without an exhaustive introduction, and so could anything based on some part of the Sil if it were done in the same style we saw in the prologue to the movie of FOTR.

Agreed. Any sort of intro would do.

The point was that there'd be a clash between movie fan expectations and the need to make the Balrogs a more reasonable size in order for the narrative of the tales that make up the Sil to work. That'd already make for three (not one, three) encounters with Balrogs that would have to be rewritten, that I can think of. Plus any impact on the great battles.

I was merely making an example of how to work around it for one battle, if that can work I think most others can. If they need to reduce the size then so be it... But the only other encounter of a Balrog v Elf is Glorfindel, and that was on a mountain side, so plenty of possibilites there. The other Balrog deaths that were said to be during the last battle can be cut out.

Sorry to shout but IT'D STILL BE A FLYING SHIP, when the majority of the narrative of the Sil has people trudging about or riding horses. Sudden changes like that can lose an audience.

And thats why it's so important to introduce us to Valinor, where flying ships and horses happen every other week. Or maybe atleast mention flying ships, foreshadow future events and what not!

I'm not sure how the audience would take to an Eagle the size of an airliner, either...

-.- even though the eagles in LOTR aren't as large as Thorondor, it was still widley accepted.

I dunno. There's Huan, the ravaging hound of the Valar. Luthien going nuts on Sauron's Tower, the journey into the heart of Angband, Beren prying the Silmaril from Morgoth's own crown. The warg that devours Beren's hand. Plus the last recorded mortal deed, Beren killing the Lord of Nogrod and recovering the stolen Silmaril. Seems like there's plenty of backside-kicking to satisfy the testosterone crowd.

It really could make a fabulous stand-alone story. With, if not a happy, then at least not a hopelessly sad ending. I'd watch that.

Actually...your right here. I could think of it like the 'Lady Hawk' story, which was another romance, but had some action in it...I love that film.

Originally Posted by Floin

Again with the literal stuff! ><

What I meant was that people in general love dark tales, especially nowadays with 'A song of Ice and Fire' becoming the next 'Lord of the Rings.'

I'm getting very weary of you keeping saying I'm being over-literal. I'm simply being specific, given that we know what we're talking about here. Yes, the modern preference is for darker, gritty tales but still, Turin's saga is very dark indeed - the moment when Glaurung's spell fades and Nienor realises her predicament would be horrifying to watch, if done well. And by then hurling herself from the heights of Cabed-en-Aras she kills not only herself but her unborn child, rememeber. That, topped off with Turin's own suicide, would put it right up there with Pan's Labyrinth when it came to having a grim ending; as with that movie, the antagonist might have met a suitable fate but the protagonist would end up dead as well (and by his own hand, in this case, which is worse).

Whatever else, it certainly wouldn't be for kids! And therein would lie a difficulty.

Animated..... anyone?

Originally Posted by Floin

Well grittiness is pretty much covered in Middle Earth... but now Valinor. What of it? It's vast it's beautiful, it has two trees that shine light. If they show it, it doesn't really have to be for that long. But the West is a really important part of the Silmarillion, especially at the end. To tell the story of the saga they need to introduced to it. It's not like the audience will scream for blood for the time Valinor is on. Neither do they need to follow the exact descriptions of the elves. They can cut out all the dancing and singing they do, infact, all they need to focus on really is the Noldor. Sure tell us who the Ainur are, the Vanayar and the Teleri. But the Noldor will get the spotlight.

Movies that show Heaven tend to be awful. Paradise is definitely better hinted at than shown in detail, and even though it's only the Elvish version we're talking about that would make it tricky to get right. Having thought about it, there's more plot there than could be readily summarised in a prologue, and scenes which you wouldn't want to gloss over because they're such epic stuff. Earlier events like Melkor's defeat and capture could be summarised (e.g. a quick cut-scene of Tulkas hurling Melkor down on his face and chaining him) but you wouldn't want to miss out on, say, the scene where Ungoliant turns on Melkor, or the swearing of the Oath of Feanor, or the pronouncing of the Doom of Mandos.

And do these people enjoy fantasy at all? Reading the Sil and watching the Sil would be different experiences I think. Like reading LOTR and watching it.

Yes, but the mythological stuff could be just as good at putting people off in a movie as it is on the page. All that'd be needed would be enough of a summary to establish Melkor as a character.

I was merely making an example of how to work around it for one battle, if that can work I think most others can. If they need to reduce the size then so be it... But the only other encounter of a Balrog v Elf is Glorfindel, and that was on a mountain side, so plenty of possibilites there. The other Balrog deaths that were said to be during the last battle can be cut out.

If Balrogs were 'really' tens of feet high then the one that went after Glorfindel could have simply swatted him clean off the mountain. (The same was actually true in FOTR as well... PJ glossed over that detail!). They weren't so big that they couldn't be fought mano-a-mano.

What I was thinking of in particular is that it would look ridiculous to have it require a whole bunch of Balrogs to take down Feanor when just one Balrog the size they're shown to be in the movie could simply have stepped on him and squashed him flat.

And thats why it's so important to introduce us to Valinor, where flying ships and horses happen every other week. Or maybe atleast mention flying ships, foreshadow future events and what not!

The point was that it'd inescapably be a huge contrast to all the preceding action in Middle-earth. Don't forget, the action in Valinor is right at the beginning of the Sil and the War of Wrath is at the end, with an awful lot happening in between.

-.- even though the eagles in LOTR aren't as large as Thorondor, it was still widley accepted.

Saying they weren't as large as him is an understatement! Thorondor was huge.

Actually...your right here. I could think of it like the 'Lady Hawk' story, which was another romance, but had some action in it...I love that film.

It's far more about about the epic quest than the romance. I mean, come on: wouldn't we all want to see the scene where Luthien puts the whammy on Morgoth? I know I would. Besides - a female lead who's supposed to be powerful as well as being smoking hot... what's not to like?

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

I'm getting very weary of you keeping saying I'm being over-literal. I'm simply being specific, given that we know what we're talking about here. Yes, the modern preference is for darker, gritty tales but still, Turin's saga is very dark indeed - the moment when Glaurung's spell fades and Nienor realises her predicament would be horrifying to watch, if done well. And by then hurling herself from the heights of Cabed-en-Aras she kills not only herself but her unborn child, rememeber. That, topped off with Turin's own suicide, would put it right up there with Pan's Labyrinth when it came to having a grim ending; as with that movie, the antagonist might have met a suitable fate but the protagonist would end up dead as well (and by his own hand, in this case, which is worse).

Whatever else, it certainly wouldn't be for kids! And therein would lie a difficulty.

You being specific is getting me weary. Look it's obvious were not getting along here, and the debate is becoming more of a silly internet arguement where two points of views clash to the point that all reason is lost. And face it, I'm hard to take seriously when I confused the Quenta Silmarillion with the Valaquenta. If I were in your position I'd say "### is this guy on about? Has he even read the books." I have don't worry, but most things I recall by memory, since I hate having to stand up and get the book from downstairs hehe (very OCD part of me, I hate taking things out of their places.)

I feel that the Silmarillion would make a great movie series, definatley not TV, but for a big(huge) budget film, it could happen. There are enough great scenes in the Aniulindale and the Valaquenta to make for a good prolouge. Long enough to make sense, but short enough so that no one is bored. Why should we be introduced to something that has got nothing to do with the Quenta Silmarillion? Well I feel that the audience needs to know enough of the world they are going to watch.

With great writing and a great narrator (and a great director ofcourse) it can be done easily. I'm starting to think about how it can be done by processing images in my head to make it look like some sort of movie (it's coming out really well if you want to know xD.)

I can see that you feel that the modern audience won't buy into this 'heavinly' world of Valinor, but I think they will. I mean the prolouge will introduce us to this world, depending where the prolouge ends is how interesting it would be. I think the perfect time for it to end would be with Fingolfin and the first of the great battles. Now if we were to take it page by page we'd be 10 hours into the film by now, but some details aren't neccesary, and the gaps can be filled with dialogue, like Melian and Thingol's meeting (this was done plenty of times in the Lord of the Rings.)

Mythological creatures such as Thorondor will not be a problem, or don't you think the word 'awesome' comes to mind? The general reaction won't be "pfft" but :O if the scene is shot right. And now...



Maybe they won't even have to film this? Maybe they won't even put it in the film. But if they do... it doesn't have to be exactly like that painting. It can be white, it can shine, but no the point that it looks childish. Now just him appearing out of Thorondor's ### like his does in the novels won't happen in a film.

But if you still believe the modern audience won't buy half the things in the Silmarillion due to it bizzarre levels of mythology based on the opinions of these readers then to hell with it. There is no point in debating on it since we both clearly have two point's of views on the subject that are narrower than extremist relgions

I remember this English teacher who was this master at literature, SUPERB vocabulary. Had an awesome taste in books...but hated Tolkien. Oooh the arguements I had with her

Originally Posted by Floin

You being specific is getting me weary. Look it's obvious were not getting along here, and the debate is becoming more of a silly internet arguement where two points of views clash to the point that all reason is lost.

More that you're trying to hide behind vague generalities, but I'll let that pass.

I feel that the Silmarillion would make a great movie series, definatley not TV, but for a big(huge) budget film, it could happen. There are enough great scenes in the Aniulindale and the Valaquenta to make for a good prolouge. Long enough to make sense, but short enough so that no one is bored. Why should we be introduced to something that has got nothing to do with the Quenta Silmarillion? Well I feel that the audience needs to know enough of the world they are going to watch.

To make a Biblical analogy: you don't have to plough through the whole of Genesis in order to make a movie about the Exodus. All you really need to know to start with is that the Israelites are being held captive in Egypt and are being treated very badly. (I mention this in particular because the story of Moses has, of course, already had the big-budget movie treatment, back in the 1950s).

Mythological creatures such as Thorondor will not be a problem, or don't you think the word 'awesome' comes to mind? The general reaction won't be "pfft" but :O if the scene is shot right. And now...



Maybe they won't even have to film this? Maybe they won't even put it in the film. But if they do... it doesn't have to be exactly like that painting. It can be white, it can shine, but no the point that it looks childish. Now just him appearing out of Thorondor's ### like his does in the novels won't happen in a film.

That looks really naff. The real question is how on earth Earendil managed to bring down Ancalagon, who was absolutely immense. Waving a sword around certainly wouldn't do it. Tolkien glossed over all the details but on the screen you'd have to show it, somehow.

But if you still believe the modern audience won't buy half the things in the Silmarillion due to it bizzarre levels of mythology based on the opinions of these readers then to hell with it. There is no point in debating on it since we both clearly have two point's of views on the subject that are narrower than extremist relgions

Readers don't buy a bunch of things in the Sil as it is, so why should making it into a movie make any difference? I've told you already that Tolkien considered it problematic to put out-and-out mythology in front of a modern audience. A flat earth, lit up by enormous lamps on top of pillars? An island being towed back and forth across the sea? The Sun and Moon being made from the fruits of magic trees? And you think people wouldn't find that at all funny? Honestly, you're being a bit of a muppet.

More that you're trying to hide behind vague generalities, but I'll let that pass.

Hide? Never...I'm bad at hiding.

To make a Biblical analogy: you don't have to plough through the whole of Genesis in order to make a movie about the Exodus. All you really need to know to start with is that the Israelites are being held captive in Egypt and are being treated very badly. (I mention this in particular because the story of Moses has, of course, already had the big-budget movie treatment, back in the 1950s).

True...but who said anything about going through everything? When telling a story that is basically a history with some vauge story arch (which is the Noldor's plight) you have to be familiarised with the world your seeing. Just jumping into plot and saying "HERES THE SILMARILLION! ENJOY!" Would be really bad move. Especially with the geography...

That looks really naff. The real question is how on earth Earendil managed to bring down Ancalagon, who was absolutely immense. Waving a sword around certainly wouldn't do it. Tolkien glossed over all the details but on the screen you'd have to show it, somehow.

And that's good. Tolkien leaving out details is perfect for these guys to full that gap. I think if a ship manages to fly at incredible speeds, Earendil can do something to slay a Dragon. He doesn't really have to be on the ship. Who says he doesn't jump out and leap onto him?

And yeah...it's a pretty cool painting. You can see more at Ted Nansmith's website.

Readers don't buy a bunch of things in the Sil as it is, so why should making it into a movie make any difference? I've told you already that Tolkien considered it problematic to put out-and-out mythology in front of a modern audience. A flat earth, lit up by enormous lamps on top of pillars? An island being towed back and forth across the sea? The Sun and Moon being made from the fruits of magic trees? And you think people wouldn't find that at all funny? Honestly, you're being a bit of a muppet.

And I thought we were getting along so well...I was going to buy you dinner! :O nah...I agree, I am one at times.

Anyways... I see what your saying, but I cannot percieve that as a problem. There are many ways to avoid these things but still show them.

So let's say for the creation of Arda, and theres a scene explaining it. They don't have to say it's flat and they don't really have take shots of it showing that. But that wouldn't be a problem if they did. As you said...Terry Pratchet's disc world. Though I haven't tocuhed a Terry Pratchet book I've seen parts of the movies, and to my knowledge they were liked pretty well.

But anyway, the same goes for everything else. They can leave those details out, those things that a reader would know but someone seeing it won't.

Still...if they don't buy it at the end, and they think it's silly, it doesn't matter. As long as they are entertained by the largest part of the Silmarillion - which takes pla... ahh hell you know - it's fine. They can think it's silly, and can still love the movie. Characters, dialogue and plot make a film. The atmosphere is pretty dark aslong as it's in middle earth. Which, if a movie series is made, will be mostly shot there.

Originally Posted by Floin

True...but who said anything about going through everything? When telling a story that is basically a history with some vauge story arch (which is the Noldor's plight) you have to be familiarised with the world your seeing. Just jumping into plot and saying "HERES THE SILMARILLION! ENJOY!" Would be really bad move. Especially with the geography...

That's story arc, mate. And they never went into terribly much detail in the LOTR movies about the world or its geography, but that seemed to be okay.

And that's good. Tolkien leaving out details is perfect for these guys to full that gap. I think if a ship manages to fly at incredible speeds, Earendil can do something to slay a Dragon. He doesn't really have to be on the ship. Who says he doesn't jump out and leap onto him?

But it'll still only count as one, right? /facepalm

Anyways... I see what your saying, but I cannot percieve that as a problem. There are many ways to avoid these things but still show them.

The trouble with the Sil is that it's an unconventional work that on the whole, doesn't appear to lend itself to being filmed. That would cause problems.

So let's say for the creation of Arda, and theres a scene explaining it. They don't have to say it's flat and they don't really have take shots of it showing that. But that wouldn't be a problem if they did. As you said...Terry Pratchet's disc world. Though I haven't tocuhed a Terry Pratchet book I've seen parts of the movies, and to my knowledge they were liked pretty well.

The thing to remember about the Discworld is that the idea about the world being on the backs of elephants which stand on top of a turtle wasn't something Pratchett came up with, he's just having a ton of fun with it. It's not meant to be taken seriously for a second, it's an obvious parody so nobody so much as blinks at that. It's funny. Tolkien's problem was different, that people can't take that kind of mythology seriously nowadays, be it genuinely ancient or constructed.

Still...if they don't buy it at the end, and they think it's silly, it doesn't matter. As long as they are entertained by the largest part of the Silmarillion - which takes pla... ahh hell you know - it's fine. They can think it's silly, and can still love the movie. Characters, dialogue and plot make a film. The atmosphere is pretty dark aslong as it's in middle earth. Which, if a movie series is made, will be mostly shot there.

And that's another thing: dialogue. Unlike the LOTR movies (much of the dialogue for which was from the books, although sometimes lines were swapped between characters), the Sil is rather light on conversation. Someone would really have their work cut out for them there - and it's all too easy to strike the wrong tone, as PJ & Co. did every now and again despite having so much to work from.

It'll be interesting to see how Tolkienesque the Hobbit movies manage to be when they're taking detours away from the plot of the book, as they apparently will.

Jus replace Earendil with Liv Tyler like PJ did instead of Glorfindel , people will be to busy drooling over her to notice , sorted:P

That's story arc, mate. And they never went into terribly much detail in the LOTR movies about the world or its geography, but that seemed to be okay.

As we've said, LOTR has a narrative, it's a story, with everything in it to make a story work. The narrative for the Silmarillion is about a history more than anything else. So when telling that history you have to get people to know whats going on.

But even then, TWO versions of the Lord of the Rings had a prolouge. PJ as we all know, and the animated version in 1979 no? Ralph something hehe... I have the dvd, great film :-) to bad they made the fellowship and two towers only.

And sorry for the spelling mistakes. But I'm sure you've spotted more than just the 'arch' hehe

But it'll still only count as one, right? /facepalm

I don't see what you mean. If your saying that he slayed more than one...then probably...there were hundreds after all.

The trouble with the Sil is that it's an unconventional work that on the whole, doesn't appear to lend itself to being filmed. That would cause problems.

I still disagree. I think we both have our set opinions on this. I feel that it can be filmed, even with the vauge descriptions, the 'over the top' mythology and the many characters that lack depth.

The thing to remember about the Discworld is that the idea about the world being on the backs of elephants which stand on top of a turtle wasn't something Pratchett came up with, he's just having a ton of fun with it. It's not meant to be taken seriously for a second, it's an obvious parody so nobody so much as blinks at that. It's funny. Tolkien's problem was different, that people can't take that kind of mythology seriously nowadays, be it genuinely ancient or constructed.

As I said before, does it matter if they take it seriously? The most bizzare things happen during the valaquenta and ainudalin. After the sun and moon are made things become 'toned' down, into a Tolkien we are more familiar with in the LOTR books.

Now I think you misunderstand when I say 'prolouge.' But instead of trying to interpret your understanding of my use of it; I'll ask you... what do you think I mean when I say have a prolouge explaining the basis of the story?


I find these people totally idiotic in their own right. Pure hypocrites who go and watch a film about fantasy and expect a Game of Thrones... but so be it, that is our 'culture' now...

And that's another thing: dialogue. Unlike the LOTR movies (much of the dialogue for which was from the books, although sometimes lines were swapped between characters), the Sil is rather light on conversation. Someone would really have their work cut out for them there - and it's all too easy to strike the wrong tone, as PJ & Co. did every now and again despite having so much to work from.

It'll be interesting to see how Tolkienesque the Hobbit movies manage to be when they're taking detours away from the plot of the book, as they apparently will.

I'll admit it...I found alot of Tolkien's characters to be wooden in the Silmarillion. Everybody is 'valiant, fair, noble, blonde, tall, can talk to bugs etc...' this goes for the Valar, Sindarin and Edain. The best character in the Silmarllion is without no doubt Turin, I find he is a great expeption and a tragic being.

The dialogue presented to us though gives us a rough idea of their character. Like Thingol, we can tell that he is ambitious and sometimes arrogant. Melian could be Galadriel 2.0 since I think much of Galadirel's own wisdom came from her.

It's not much...but it's enough for the fundamentals.

Originally Posted by Floin

As we've said, LOTR has a narrative, it's a story, with everything in it to make a story work. The narrative for the Silmarillion is about a history more than anything else. So when telling that history you have to get people to know whats going on.

But you still don't need to go through everything. The thing about prologues is that they need to be brief and to the point, or the audience will glaze over.

I don't see what you mean. If your saying that he slayed more than one...then probably...there were hundreds after all.

That was a movie reference. It's from during the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, when Legolas does something utterly outrageous (taking down an Oliphaunt all by himself) and Gimli snaps at him "That still only counts as one!", as they're still competing. Jumping onto a dragon in mid-air from a flying ship would be even more outrageous uber-heroics

I still disagree. I think we both have our set opinions on this. I feel that it can be filmed, even with the vauge descriptions, the 'over the top' mythology and the many characters that lack depth.

Well, sure, you want to believe that for whatever reason but sadly, reality is more complicated than that. The heavily mythological bits at the beginning really do put people off the book and I'm damned if I can see why that should magically be different with a movie.

As I said before, does it matter if they take it seriously? The most bizzare things happen during the valaquenta and ainudalin. After the sun and moon are made things become 'toned' down, into a Tolkien we are more familiar with in the LOTR books.

Sorry, but you're being way too casual about that. Yes, of course it matters because what's at the beginning of a movie colours your whole perception of it. If you lose the audience right at the beginning, you don't get them back. You want that first five minutes of an epic to make your audience go "Whoa!", not "What?" and still less "LOL".

Your still basing your presumption on these readers? Did you conduct a lecture in a hall filled with thousands of people? Or were these 50-100 + people just acquaintances/friends? How many other movies have done something 'bizzare' and people have looked on it in wonder. Avatar, and yes, it's a sci-fi, but those floating rocks were just beautiful! Pandora it's self actually, and how many people's moods changed when they saw that forest being burnt to the floor?

The Silmarillion is no different. The world is flat? So... yeah? It's not like we are going to be reminded about it ever five minuets. The world was lit by two lamps? Hell...maybe they directors skip that part in (the supposed) prolouge and will just have a line "Melkor commited a great crime, and all the Valar despiared...until etc..." The moon and star were made from the fruits of the two trees? You know how absolutley georgouse that scene alone can be with just visual effects? How much emotion and sadness could go through the audience if they actually do things right.

I'm not sure about these readers. But to me they sound like they have no taste in fantasy at all. Books and films are different, we know that; some things can be done in films that would just seem idiotic in the books, especially with the Silmarillion. Tolkien's lack of character development and depth allows to the writers these already one dimensional personalities and get them to be liked.

But anyway...suppose that a prolouge about the Valaquenta wasn't made. And that the whole story was based on the Quenta Silmarillion...then could it be possible?

Oh... and about Earendil... well... hehe... knowing the Sil, there will be plenty of 'Legolas moments' xD

Originally Posted by Floin

Your still basing your presumption on these readers? Did you conduct a lecture in a hall filled with thousands of people? Or were these 50-100 + people just acquaintances/friends? How many other movies have done something 'bizzare' and people have looked on it in wonder. Avatar, and yes, it's a sci-fi, but those floating rocks were just beautiful! Pandora it's self actually, and how many people's moods changed when they saw that forest being burnt to the floor?

The point is that if the heavily mythological parts of the Sil are off-putting to people who read fantasy and liked LOTR, then movie-goers would likely find them to be even more so.

The Silmarillion is no different.

Avatar doesn't go 'Avatar-ish' right from the start. The opening scene is hard sci-fi, remember? And the exposition is part of scenes where the protagonist has to find his feet (quite literally) on an alien world. The Sil, on the other hand, throws the reader right in at the deep end with the creation of the world (or if we're only talking the QS proper, with the Age of the Lamps). Just a bit of a difference, there. In Avatar it's only when you see the floating rocks for the first time that the fantasy elements become evident.

The world is flat? So... yeah? It's not like we are going to be reminded about it ever five minuets. The world was lit by two lamps? Hell...maybe they directors skip that part in (the supposed) prolouge and will just have a line "Melkor commited a great crime, and all the Valar despiared...until etc..." The moon and star were made from the fruits of the two trees? You know how absolutley georgouse that scene alone can be with just visual effects? How much emotion and sadness could go through the audience if they actually do things right.

The audience would more likely be too busy going "What, the Sun's a fruit?" and giggling. Like I said (but you seem to have trouble grasping), Tolkien himself saw issues in putting that sort of thing in front of a general audience. When was the last time you saw a movie with that sort of myth in it? They'd have to downplay it, and just stick to the essentials (Melkor's rebellion, his capture, Feanor making the Silmarils etc.).

Even when it comes to the Silmarils, it'd be kind of hard to explain to Everyman what the point is. Why does everyone want the things? The appeal of the Ring was obvious (power) but the Silmarils don't do anything so obvious. Their importance is purely mythological too (the light they contained).

I'm not sure about these readers. But to me they sound like they have no taste in fantasy at all. Books and films are different, we know that; some things can be done in films that would just seem idiotic in the books, especially with the Silmarillion. Tolkien's lack of character development and depth allows to the writers these already one dimensional personalities and get them to be liked.

Don't be disparaging. It's common knowledge that the Sil isn't everybody's cup of tea and I can appreciate why, even though I might understand where Tolkien was coming from. There remains the problem that on the whole, nearly all the characters are Elves and that wouldn't help with character development or making the characters appealing enough to be protagonists. Elves aren't everyone's cup of tea, either.

But anyway...suppose that a prolouge about the Valaquenta wasn't made. And that the whole story was based on the Quenta Silmarillion...then could it be possible?

I have my doubts, for the reasons I explained earlier (chiefly that portraying Paradise convincingly in a movie is tricky). I still think that trying to film the whole thing wouldn't work, and that sticking to the largely self-contained stories that we talked about earlier would be a very much safer bet. After all, The Children of Hurin has already been spun off as a separate book.

If CoH were to be made into a film then they'd have to have some prolouge, but I guess something like LOTR had. And nothing to do with Valaquenta/Ainudalin.

Edit: The reason I can't seem to grasp the idea of people giggling at the Silmarillion is mostly due my mind not comprehending how...idiotic it can be. The Silmarillion was my second favourite in Tolkien's saga, it's kind of like my bible...but then again, my favourite part in LOTR is the Fellowship and that's supposedly the least liked I have a tender spot in my heart for cripples, ######## and...oops wrong book xD

I always wanted some kind of adaptation of the Silm, but I just don't know what kind would work best. One movie: obviously not. A trilogy kind of like Lotr or even Star Wars style... maybe. A well-made series of like 10 hour long episodes might also be a choice, if it was pulled off well. But as many said, bad production, funding, acting, storytelling structure, etc could ruin it, and that might be worse than none at all.

I agree that it might not be for the average movie goer, since it is overall a very macro-level telling of great events and history as it unfolded over a long time, though it does go into depth at points. I agree there is alot of good stuff in individual tales like Feanor's, Beren's, the battles, Turin, Maeglin, Earendil, etc and all the drama and betrayal and so on.

I think for the opening part, it should be mostly a voice over with impressive CGI briefly depicting the creation of the world of Arda, the Valar and Maiar and the early battles with the lamps and Utumno and later trees and so on (kind of like the background intro for LotR, where there wasn't much speaking other than Galadriel and Bilbo's narration), and finally only start the actual talking after the awakening of the Elves and the beginning of their migration. Heck, even that part isn't really detailed enough to warrant its own section, so maybe once the drama regarding the Silmarils begins it can really start.

After that sweeping, epic-style narration intro, it could delve into the specific stories. But it seems like it would be tough to structure them evenly into the story considering the time gaps while still holding the audience's attention, but I could see it done. Other movies also have flash-forwards when necessary as well.

Oh and I don't think the issue of the Valar being able to "swat" Morgoth at any time is a real one. They had problems with him in the older days as he was the strongest one, and more importantly, the fact that the Noldor were told that they should not go and do what they did made them outcasts and forsaken in the eyes of the Valar.

As for the central, unifying theme of the Silmarils, would they serve the same purpose as that of the Ring in LotR, or are they not that captivating? They're almost more symbolic than possessing of real power, having that lost light that the darkness of Morgoth took, and it was a matter of pride which drove the Elves back to get them. I guess some people could understand that though.

I could see at first alot of people coming to see the movie or watching the series simply because of its connection to LotR, but it would probably be a much more niche audience overall.

Akallabeth and the whole story of Numenor and its rise and fall would be interesting as a separate thing, but that has even less of a chance of being adapted into anything. There isn't a huge amount of detail in the middle of its history, but there is still Aldarian and Erendis, the voyages of the fleets, and the slowly encroaching darkness that led to its peoples pride and ultimate downfall.

Oh and it sucks PJ took out Bombadil, the Barrow downs, and the Scouring of the Shire, but the movies were already very long anyway. I agree it would kind of upset the flow of the story to have that at the end, though the end of RotK was a bit too drawn out.

Originally Posted by Booserati

i understand the concern for a diluted product that would be a tv series, i only mentioned id rather see it as a tv series because the silmarilion is too large and epic and needs the 10, 1 hour long episodes to do it justice. 3, 2 hours movies wouldnt do it justice. especially with PJ hacking parts out of it because he feels that "it was the worst part of the trilogy" as he said about the scourge of the shire, as if it were his place to decide that. . .

Considering the LotR trilogy is 11 hours+, 10 hours wouldn't scratch the surface of the Silmarillion in order to do it justice. Maybe a 10 hour mini-series dedicated to each major story in the book would be more realistic. But it's all a pipe dream unfortunately.
I agree the scouring is the worst part of the story, and would have been ultra-anti climactic if added on after all the epic endings and resolutions, and I thought it was pretty anti-climactic in the book too. I understand the purpose of it, but just didn't work well at the very end for some reason. Oops, was it my place to decide that? I think it was PJ's place to decide what would work in his movie imo, but that's just me.