If the Children of Húrin was filmed...

[Lalaith]

What I would fear most, in a Hollywood version of the Narn, is the dreaded modern curse of emotional incontinence.
Narn is a very buttoned-up, sparse tragedy. It is Morwen saying nothing but scratching at the doorpost til her fingers bleed when the child Turin leaves for Doriath. It is Hurin and Morwen, at the end of it all, after decades apart, not falling into each other's arms but sitting in silence, mourning the terrible fates of their children.
There are few directors these days with enough restraint and self-control to carry off this kind of strong, silent tragedy. Most would be unable to resist injecting a huge dose of sentimental emoting and twaddle. Peter Jackson could not be trusted with it. The Fellowship reunion bed scene springs to mind. *shudder*

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

What I would fear most, in a Hollywood version of the Narn, is the dreaded modern curse of emotional incontinence.
Narn is a very buttoned-up, sparse tragedy. It is Morwen saying nothing but scratching at the doorpost til her fingers bleed when the child Turin leaves for Doriath. It is Hurin and Morwen, at the end of it all, after decades apart, not falling into each other's arms but sitting in silence, mourning the terrible fates of their children.

Can't help wondering if this is because so many modern novels are written as 'first draft screenplays' - the writer always seems to have in the forefront of his/her mind the movie version. Hence, this 'emotional incontinence' is a problem with many modern novels as well as movies. The two seem to feed off each other. Certainly if Tolkien had had a movie adaptation in mind when he wrote CoH he may have felt constrained by the necessities of that medium.

I wonder if that is why so much modern fantasy is increasingly bland & authors afraid of taking risks? Fantasy movies are now big business, & adaptations are assumed to be automatic. Hence this thread perhaps - the assumption behind it is that a movie should be made, so let's start planning it now!! I'm sure that many studios also assumed that the rights would be up for sale & have taken the clear statement on the Estate website that there are no plans to sell the film rights as either the result of CT being an old fogey still living in the dark ages, or a shrewd customer playing hard ball to get the best deal. The idea that a writer (or editor) might have written/produced a novel rather than a FDS (first draft screenplay), & intended for people to read it rather than watch it in the cinema seems to be an odd one to many people.

It strikes me that it is this attitude that is the problem, & would be the reason for any movie version being savagely bowdlerised - movie studios do not think in terms of producing art, but rather of making money. The novel is indeed merely a FDS & is there to be 'developed' into the 'final' stage which is the shooting script. The novel is not an art form in its own right but a source of raw material, waiting to be shaped into the 'real' thing. Thus, they do not think in terms of respecting the artist's vision, because that 'vision' to their mind is not in its final, proper, form - only when it becomes a shooting script is the process complete.

So, the incest, the dual suicide, the bleak, not to say often depressing, mood of the tale are not, to the studio executive's mind, essentials of the story (nor is the language) - they are the starting points with which they begin. We saw this attitude repeatedly in the LotR movies, with the movie makers constant repetion throughout the DVD commentaries that ''X' would not have worked in a movie.', or ''Y' was not really convincing to us, so we had to change it to 'Z'.'

Its not so much a case of 'disresect' but rather of not understanding what a novel is, that it is a thing in its own right, not the source for something else. The problem is this assumption that a novel exists to be made into a movie & that the movie is the ultimate form the story should take - even if what actually survives of the original story is the barest bones. What is needed is a change of attitude - an assumption that novels will not be made into movies, & that when one is found that can be adapted that is the exception rather than the rule. Yet, one cannot put all the blame on the studios - the writers, as I stated, are complicit in this - too many write novels with an eye on the movie rights.

[Lalwendë]

To be fair, I think many writers, especially those who have not attained huge financial success, sell on film rights because they simply would like some more money! The problem emerges when a film is likely to be seen by 'family' audiences so film-makers believe they must tone down any contentious elements (currently I'm a bit scared of what might happen to Northern Lights...) or when a novel has a great story but is much more than a simple story when on the page and thus doesn't translate well to film - I'm thinking of the unholy mess they made of Possession here.

Personally I really don't care to see a film of CoH made anytime soon - far better to let the book lie for a while and enter the public consciousness that way. They made films of Harry Potter too soon, and there simply wasn't enough time for mental images of Harry, Hermione etc to form in readers' minds, so Harry will forever be Daniel Radcliffe now. LotR benefitted from not being filmed for a long time - my mental images of most characters are still intact and not spoiled by the films due to the amount of time they existed only within my own mind - e.g. Elrond still has grey hair and a beard to me.

It's the fault of "I want it now!" modern culture - even bands have no time to grow and develop, so you get the very modern (and disappointing) problem of 'dodgy second albums' all the time, and bands last about a year or two before splitting up.

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

If all this is true, I wonder how all these nasty stories get started leading folks like me to believe that the Tolkien Estate - and Christoper in particular - did not like or approve of the movies? I could have sworn than I have read this many times in many places over the last few years. I certainly cannot remember ever seeing the opposite - that Christopher or any other member of the Estate was thankful for the films, was thankful for the additional revenue they produced for them, or at the least had even enjoyed them.

Now going back to this interesting question, I think that the reason there are so many gripes directed towards the Tolkien estate is simple jealousy! The estate keep a tight reign on archives, and on who can look at them and what they can do with them. That's perfectly acceptable to my mind as they are only trying to quality control what is put out in Tolkien's name, and there already enough unauthorised crackpot texts/critiques/biographies out there.

They also manage to hold back a potential flood of thoroughly non-canonical writings. Fan fic is great, and I've played a few RPGs myself, but I will never accept them as being from Tolkien's own mind because they obviously are not; I can accept editing from Christopher as he knew his father better than anyone could have done, but fan fic is a whole different kettle of fish. Star Wars fans are always falling out due to the spin-off novels which are stuffed with conflicting info - can you imagine how bad it would be if Tolkien fans had to put up with that?! It's bad enough dealing with Tolkien's contradictory letters!

The estate also have to hold back the flood of us 'fans' a little as we can admittedly be pretty obsessive! And no doubt the family remember the horrors Tolkien suffered of being rung up in the middle of the night by over-keen fans!

They also have a right to earn some money from the estate - Tolkien worked incredibly hard to keep his family on a relatively low wage and struggled with bills so it's nice that he left them something to help them out. They are not all rich through the legacy, as simply there are a lot of Tolkiens out there! They all have their own professional lives and are not leeching off the estate.

And most of all, they are really nice people, often involved with the Tolkien Society even though they have no need to be, and also approachable and friendly.

I honestly don't think they will release film rights to CoH for many, many years, if ever.

[Mithalwen]

Royd Tolkien is the son of Joan Anne daughter of Michael. His father is not a Tolkien. In an interview about his appearance in the films he stated that while he enjoyed the experience he fully understood Christopher's wish to keep his distance from something over which he had no control.

He also stated that while Tolkien's descendents benefit from his works they all worked. I have had e-mail contact with him. He is a nice guy.

Given that Tolkien received a modest amount for the film rights I have no problem if hte family benefit indirectly from the film. The fact that they seem to have given it away is laudable. The films benefitted from plenty of people like me who go very seldom to the cinema going at least once and buying all the DVDs led there by the books.

Christopher Tolkien is not what I would call a public figure by any stretch. He is not in public office he is a private individual. His financial and family affairs are really noones business.

I really find it baffling that people delight in badmouthing him. I could understand it if he had truly cashed in in the way Lal suggested he might, and had spent his retirement endorsing trash and living ala Hugh Heffner but the fact is he has devoted 30 years to editing his fathers notes and drafts apart from his contribution during Tolkien's life time living quietly in France. For achieving this task I admire him greatly - and apart from the sheer scale of the task, I am finding it hard enough to simply type up my late mother's short memoir, so I can only imagine the emotional impact of working through his father's manuscripts. You only have to read the letters to understand how important all Tolkien's family was to him but there was a special bond with Christopher. I rather doubt his affection was so misplaced as some people clearly like to believe.

[Macalaure]

Not a lot enthusiasm on this thread, as it seems.
Though I can understand that many of you are sceptic, I don’t share the frustration of some. I like watching movies, and it's almost natural to me to ponder how my favourite stories and books would appear on screen, and how they could be made to appear well. Nobody here wants to see the Children of Húrin (or anything else Tolkien-related)-movie at all costs, but I would greatly appreciate a well-made one. I think this thread is not so much about ‘I want it now!’ but simply for the fun of speculation.

So let's go!

Originally Posted by Lommy

This made me wonder what kind of movie the story would make. I know it'll be easier to speculate once we have the book in our hands, but I think we can still discuss some things here now already. What (if something) things could be left out? What scenes would you definitely want to see? Who should play the main roles? Who should direct it? And so on... I'm interested to hear your opinions about these things.

First off, echoing Squatter among others, nothing should be invented and nothing significantly changed. It’s a dark story and therefore has to be a dark movie. There is very few lightheartedness and it should not be forced upon it, just maybe a little dry humour here or there. It won't be a typical blockbuster movie and definitely no family film like LotR, but then: there have been dark movies that became successful, despite, or even due to, their darkness. The target audience will be smaller than with LotR, but it's there. The label Tolkien might make the film companies desire a lower rating, but if none could be convinced otherwise, I indeed would rather want no CoH on screen at all. Then again, it does have the label Tolkien on it, which will probably automatically make it more interesting to many people - now. I think many people give Peter Jackson too little credit for the risk he (and New Line) took with LotR. It could have turned out to be a grand failure. Now, after the success, the makers of possible further Tolkien-movies might have the 'freedom' to stay closer to the original, because it will sell in either way. Of course, the Hobbit adaptation could prove me horribly wrong on this.
What I'm trying to say is, that there are enough people who would like to watch this kind of movie, and a Children of Húrin true to the original is not be bound to be only a loss of money for a studio - on the contrary, even.


In Letter 210, Tolkien repeatedly says that if a scene cannot be treated properly in the given time, it’s better to cut it out and spend the time on other things. This is a good advice, I think. If you do something, do it properly, or better don’t do it at all. What then could be sacrificed in an adaptation and what not? What is so important that one should spare the time to even expand it?

What could be shortened, in my mind, is:
The Nirnaeth (I love the Nirnaeth, but it isn’t needed in all the detail we know about it. The important things are those related to Húrin and Turgon, and also to Glaurung, Gwindor, Beleg and Mablung)
Túrin among the Outlaws, before Amon Rûdh (There are other passages which are simply more important)
Túrin's return to Dor-lómin (A shortening won’t work here, it’s a do or don’t. Is it really that central to the story?)
The Wanderings of Húrin (The story of Húrin in Brethil needs to go)
Characters that could be dropped: Nellas (As intriguing as she is, she’s a very underdeveloped character), Huor and Rían (As important as they are for the Silmarillion, they have little significance within CoH)

What should not be shortened, if time permits:
Túrin's childhood in Dor-lómin (This could even be expanded, especially for introductorial reasons)
Húrin and Morgoth (It should never be forgotten, as easy as it is, that, all the time, Húrin sits on his place and suffers through it)
Túrin’s relationship to Níniel
Beleg (Since, for a time, he’s even the main character of the story)
Mîm (It’s too easy to just make him into an average villain, but this would take a lot of suspense from the Amon Rûdh scenes)

In between:
Túrin in Doriath (Túrin’s youth is not so important, I think. But from the time when Túrin joins Beleg on, there’s nothing to be left out)
The story of Morwen and Nienor
Túrin in Nargothrond (Personally, I think Finduilas is more important because of the impact she has on the friendship of Túrin and Gwindor, than because of her relationship with Túrin. Additionally, it’s important that it is made plausible how Túrin was able to rise so quickly in Orodreth’s favour, otherwise this might look strange)


The importance of the special effects has been mentioned. They’re a two-sided knife indeed. On the one hand, it’s bad when the effects take over the main focus, on the other hand, nothing destroys the illusion more properly than bad effects. We need a convincing CGI Menegroth and Nargothrond and Angband, and I think that a convincing Glaurung might prove more difficult than a convincing Gollum did, because he's less human-like. The best special effects are those which are so good that the audience isn’t aware of them.

As I already said, I would sacrifice the Nirnaeth for the sake of getting the plot going, but allow me a short tangent here: I really love the Battle of Unnumbered Tears. I adore it. Unlike more or less all other battles I have ever seen in a movie, the Nirnaeth isn’t just a series of hacking and whacking and in the end somebody wins. It has a whole plot of its own, strategy and tragedy, even beyond the slow forging of the Union of Maedhros and the painful aftermath. It’s a long battle whose fortunes ever change, where hope and despair take turns and everybody who takes part in it has a proper story of his own which needs to be tracked. Add to this Elves and Men and Dwarves and Orcs and Balrogs and Dragons and you have something which could be an “Epic Fantasy Battle how it is really supposed to be”. Were we not so restricted in time, I could imagine the Nirnaeth to almost serve as a kind of opening battle, which worked so fine for example in Saving Private Ryan. In fact, I could imagine a fascinating movie which is about nothing else but the Nirnaeth.
The Battle of Tumhalad is closer to an average battle and therefore more boring. Yet, there is more to it than just Túrin and Glaurung, as it features also the deaths of Orodreth and Gwindor, which shouldn’t be treated just as an aside.
My point is that a battle can be much more than a waste of time if it is done well.


There are two problems I see, which would be challenging for a director and a script-writer. One is, there are many locations, and in each Túrin stays not just a short time, but several years. There’s Dor-lómin, Doriath, Amon Rûdh, Nargothrond, Brethil - they all need to be dealt with in detail and the audience has to be made to tie themselves to these places, because Túrin does. This needs much time, for each. The story is the story of a whole life, which means many time jumps, and these rarely do favours to a movie.
The second is a difficulty with the relationship between Túrin and Nienor. It begins at a time when we’re already, approximately, two thirds or even three fourth through the movie. This is not the ideal timing to begin the introduction of a completely new relationship, when the audience already awaits the rise to the climax. Yet it has to be done since it is most central to the story.

Originally Posted by Squatter

The central family grouping of Húrin, Morwen Eledhwen, Túrin, Níenor and Lalaith, then a court group including Thingol and Saeros; the Outlaws, which essentially revolve around the central pairing of Túrin and Beleg, the last of the Petty-dwarves in the persons of Mîm and his sons, another court group at Nargothrond and the Brethil group, particularly Brandir and Dorlas. For antagonists you have Morgoth, Glaurung and Gothmog. Everyone else is essentially a supporting rôle.

Ah! The cast!
I disagree with Squatter, a little. To me, the central characters are Húrin and Morwen, Túrin (young and grown-up) and Nienor, Beleg, Mîm, Gwindor(!), Brandir and of course Morgoth and Glaurung. These are pretty much the only ones who really have depth and need to be casted carefully. Then there’s Sador, Mablung, Thingol and Melian, Saeros, Orodreth and Finduilas, Hunthor and Dorlas. They are supporting roles, though important ones.
Lalaith dies early on and has only few lines. Maybe one or two of the Outlaws could have an increased role, but they don’t really have important individual characters (at least not if the Outlaw part before they find Mîm is shortened, *sharpens scissors*). The people from Nargothrond and Brethil, except the ones already mentioned, won’t be very important and have few lines.
I think Gothmog can be cut entirely. He kills Fingon and is then never seen again, but I fear the audience would expect him to have another appearance, so he will only distract. I would include Sauron as a minor minor character though, just to show that he’s a servant of Morgoth. By this comparison, no other explanation of the status of Morgoth is needed.


One last thing, which many will disagree with. I think it is important that the director has his own vision of the story. If this means he alters the story at some points, I'm fine with it, even though I would (of course) vehemently disagree with the respective instances. One major fault one could do is, in my opinion, to stay too close to the original. If a CoH-movie turned out to be just a retelling of the story as Tolkien wrote it, I fear it will end up being lifeless, dull and empty.
They say you have to be a poet yourself if you want to translate a poem into a different language. I think this holds for the 'translation' of a book to a film as well.


Concerning directors, what about Ang Lee?


Looking at all this, I suddenly feel the urge to apologise for the excessive length...