Silmarillion-movie?

[Sauron the White]

You seem to be saying that artists are afraid to anger the Estate by saying the 'wrong' thing. It seems to me that any artist who said anything the Estate found 'offensive' would be biting the hand that feeds them & that they would only have themselves to blame if they did that.

In many employer-employee relationships there normally exists an imbalance in terms of power with the employer holding most of the cards. What in most situations would pass for constructive criticism or a difference of opinion or even just employee input can be construed as (to use your term) something "offensive" when directed to the boss. Employees have have much thicker skins than the bosses do if they want to keep their jobs. So if you give your input to a thin skinned boss and they take offense and it ends up costing you, is that always the fault of the employee. Or would you just take that position if the employer with the power is the Tolkien Estate?

This is not 'proof' that the Estate behaves unreasonably in any way. If an artist wants to work for any employer they have to show that employer respect. This would only be a problem if the demands of the Estate were unreasonable, or that what they considered 'unreasonable' was in itself unreasonable or irrational. To merely state they don't want an over-emphasis on monsters is hardly unreasonable. Hence your whole argument seems pointless. Its no different to saying they don't want Emus & Christmas trees on the covers as far as I can see. To be honest I can't see what you're making a fuss about.

I am sure that in the opinion of some, the Estate has never acted unreasonable in any way in all the past years. And just how do you define "an over-emphasis on monsters". Is there a scale which tells you what the acceptable quota is? Obviously not. Its totally subjective. As I said before, the monsters are in there and are in there for a very good purpose. JRRT wrote it that way. This whole no monsters thing seems to me to be the Estate attempting to sanitize the whole
ME tales - at least as it is illustrated.

Again, your tendency to exaggeration simply does a disservice to your otherwise intelligent posts. You are a very knowledgable man who has a great knowledge of Tolkien and his world. I respect that. It is a mystery then as to why would you mention emus and christmas trees when nobody is discussing them? Why would you compare the honest difference of opinion about the depiction of monsters with silly things like emus and christmas trees? You try to make fun of something serious by introducing the absurd. It does no credit to you.

BTW "Almost but not quite" is a reference to a joke in the Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where a vending machine was able to read someone's mind & produce exactly the drink they really want at that moment, but always produced a liquid that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea...... You seem to be 'Almost but not quite.' accusing the Estate of something, & I wish I was clear on what it is....

Sorry - never read it. Perhaps the problem is the trying to read ones mind to get what they "really are thinking". Accept what I and other say by carefully reading the words we write without trying to change them or alter them so you can make a more clever response. Or worse, by trying read our minds to see what we really think about something. Or worse yet, to post an argument against what you think we really are thinking after you speculate on our "real" thoughts.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

In many employer-employee relationships there normally exists an imbalance in terms of power with the employer holding most of the cards. What in most situations would pass for constructive criticism or a difference of opinion or even just employee input can be construed as (to use your term) something "offensive" when directed to the boss. Employees have have much thicker skins than the bosses do if they want to keep their jobs. So if you give your input to a thin skinned boss and they take offense and it ends up costing you, is that always the fault of the employee. Or would you just take that position if the employer with the power is the Tolkien Estate?

Please tell me where these delicate flowers are. Which artists have been driven to despair & loss of hope by the cruel dictates of the Tolkien Estate? I only know of three main artists used by the Estate, Lee, Howe & Naismith, & they are among the biggest fans of the books & as far as I'm aware have never had any problems with the Estate at all.

I am sure that in the opinion of some, the Estate has never acted unreasonable in any way in all the past years. And just how do you define "an over-emphasis on monsters". Is there a scale which tells you what the acceptable quota is? Obviously not. Its totally subjective. As I said before, the monsters are in there and are in there for a very good purpose. JRRT wrote it that way. This whole no monsters thing seems to me to be the Estate attempting to sanitize the whole
ME tales - at least as it is illustrated.

Yes, its the opinion, in the main, of CT, & he owns the rights & has the final say on cover art. Why is that a problem? Are there artists out there who can only paint monsters? Tolkien did not over-emphasise the monsters in his writings - they are present, but not the focus of the stories, & CT seems merely to require cover art to reflect that.

It is a mystery then as to why would you mention emus and christmas trees when nobody is discussing them? Why would you compare the honest difference of opinion about the depiction of monsters with silly things like emus and christmas trees? You try to make fun of something serious by introducing the absurd. It does no credit to you.

Tolkien to Rayner Unwin
12 Sept. 1965

[In August 1965 Ballantine Books produced the first 'authorised' American paperback of The Hobbit, without incorporating Tolkien's revisions to the text. The cover picture showed a lion, two emus, and a tree with bulbous fruit.]

I wrot to [his American publishers] expressing (with moderation) my dislike of the cover for The Hobbit. It was a short hasty note by hand, without a copy, but it was to this effect: I think the cover ugly; but I recognize that a main object of a paperback cover is to attract purchasers, and I suppose that you are better judges of what is attractive in USA than I am. I therefore will not enter into a debate about taste -- (meaning though I did not say so: horrible colours and foul lettering) -- but I must ask this about the vignette: what has it got to do with the story? Where is this place? Why a lion and emus? And what is the thing in the foreground with pink bulbs? I do not understand how anybody who had read the tale (I hope you are one) could think such a picture would please the author.

These points have never been taken up, and are ignored in [their] latest letter. These people seem never to read letters, or have a highly cultivated deafness to anything but 'favorable reactions'.

Mrs. ---- [a representative of the paperback publishers] did not find time to visit me. She rang me up. I had a longish conversation; but she seemed to me impermeable. I should judge that all she wanted was that I should recant, be a good boy and react favorably. When I made the above points again, her voice rose several tones and she cried: 'But the man hadn't TIME to read the book!' (As if that settled it. A few minutes conversation with the 'man', and a glance at the American edition's pictures should have been sufficient regard to the pink bulbs she said as if to one of complete obtusity: 'they are meant to suggest a Christmas Tree'. Why is such a woman let loose?

Sorry - never read it. Perhaps the problem is the trying to read ones mind to get what they "really are thinking". Accept what I and other say by carefully reading the words we write without trying to change them or alter them so you can make a more clever response. Or worse, by trying read our minds to see what we really think about something. Or worse yet, to post an argument against what you think we really are thinking after you speculate on our "real" thoughts.

But you keep making out that the Estate are imposing unreasonable demands on artists, threatening to stop using their work (& thus causing them to lose money) when there is no evidence at all being presented for anything like that.

CT & the Estate don't want 'dark' images on the covers of the books. They don't want the focus on the monsters & violence. What is the problem? Why does that make them bad people?

Sorry, but it still feels like you're making some kind of veiled accusation about control freakery & an attempt to ruin careers or somesuch.

[Sauron the White]

davem..... based on presentations I have seen in person with various illustrators plus personal conversations, it is my belief that the Estate likes to have a strong hand in these matters. Obviously, the Estate, as gaurdians for the work of JRRT, would consider that a good quality that they posess. It seems that you do also. And that is fine. I do feel that this "not too many monsters" approach is an unnecessary sanitizing of the actual stories that JRRT wrote. Not that the stories themselves are edited, but that the visual portrayal of them is. So what we end up with is a less than honest visual presentation in book form of what was actually written.

Again, I refer you to the website of Nasmith and several score of color rough paintings he did as suggestions for full illustrations. The ones that did not make it were either action sequences of the darker side of JRRT's work. Some have speculated that this is a reaction to the Jackson films. But this was in motion before the films ever came out.

I refer you to the recent CofH and the near absence of the areas I am concerned with despite their obvious presence throughout the text.

My problem is what we end up with is a less than honest approach to selection of illustration material in that several areas that JRRT wrote about seem off limits to illustrators. As a consumer, and as a fan of illustration, this is less than satisfying to me.

I simply disagree with the Estate policy on this matter. That does not make them bad people. That does not make them evil. For me, that just makes them wrong. I do not know as much about JRRT as you do. I admit that. However, I do love his work expecially the Middle-earth stories. I also happen to love illustration and illustrated books. I simply think that the policy of the Estate as it pertains to "monsters" and the darker side of the material is wrong and is depriving consumers of what could be a better package.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

davem..... based on presentations I have seen in person with various illustrators plus personal conversations, it is my belief that the Estate likes to have a strong hand in these matters. Obviously, the Estate, as gaurdians for the work of JRRT, would consider that a good quality that they posess. It seems that you do also. And that is fine. I do feel that this "not too many monsters" approach is an unnecessary sanitizing of the actual stories that JRRT wrote. Not that the stories themselves are edited, but that the visual portrayal of them is. So what we end up with is a less than honest visual presentation in book form of what was actually written.

There are monsters on the covers - I've mentioned the various H0M-e covers that depict dragons, Morgoth & Shelob. The UK hb of Unfinished Tales has Tolkien's own picture of Glaurung. But they don't depict extreme violence or cruelty - & neither do the books. Tolkien didn't go in for graphic depictions of such things - Most new readers of Tolkien's work (particularly in the post movie period) are surprised (not to mention disappointed in many cases) at the lack of 'action'. The CoH illustrations, both colour & b&w, are as 'graphic' as the text - which means they aren't very graphic at all. What kind of images, exactly, do you want to see? Do you want to see Elves being burned alive by Glaurung? Do you want a graphic close up of Hurin slicing up Trolls, or on of Turin with the sword stuck through him & blood spurting in all directions - 'cos that ain't described in such detail in the text.

Again, I refer you to the website of Nasmith and several score of color rough paintings he did as suggestions for full illustrations. The ones that did not make it were either action sequences of the darker side of JRRT's work. Some have speculated that this is a reaction to the Jackson films. But this was in motion before the films ever came out.

And I refer you to the fact that Naismith has them on his website for all to see & he's still getting commissions from the Estate - all they've said is that they don't want them in the books.

I refer you to the recent CofH and the near absence of the areas I am concerned with despite their obvious presence throughout the text.

No - as I've pointed out, the kind of graphic violence & destruction you mention is absent from the book - Tolkien does not go in for that kind of thing. He may tell you that thousands died horribly in the Nirnaeth, or that Glaurung slew 'x' number of Elves, but he doesn't describe the deaths in detail.

My problem is what we end up with is a less than honest approach to selection of illustration material in that several areas that JRRT wrote about seem off limits to illustrators. As a consumer, and as a fan of illustration, this is less than satisfying to me.

But as I've said, its there if you want it. The kind of graphic violence & close up depictions of monsters in all their horrible 'majesty' is available on numerous sites. The Estate just don't want it in the books, mainly because they feel it is not representative (for the reasons I've given)

I simply think that the policy of the Estate as it pertains to "monsters" and the darker side of the material is wrong and is depriving consumers of what could be a better package.

But, as Tolkien stated in LotR:

But Orcs and Trolls spoke as they would, without love of words or things; and their language was actually more degraded and filthy than I have shown it. I do not suppose that any will wish for a closer rendering, though models are easy to find. Much the same sort of talk can still be heard among the orc-minded; dreary and repetitive with hatred and contempt, too long removed from good to retain even verbal rigour, save in the ears of those to whom only the squalid sounds strong.

Which, I think, shows Tolkien's own feelings pretty clearly, & his approach to depictions of violence, darkness & cruelty, in language as in other things. "actually more degraded and filthy than I have shown it. I do not suppose that any will wish for a closer rendering, though models are easy to find." could equally well apply to his approach to depictions of violence & monsters in his own work.

[Sauron the White]

Simply because Tolkien does not describe the step by step process in the killing of each of tens of thousands of beings, does not mean that it is not violent in its own right. How can you write a book with all of that killing, battles, wars, destruction, murder and mayhem and then take the high road saying its really not his cup of tea? To suggest otherwise is to put on a nice shiny pair of the rosiest glasses ever invented. The action and darker side of the Middle-earth stories are as much as what Tolkien is as anything else in the books.

I simply disagree with both your sanitized view of what is in the books and the Tolkien Estates carrying out of such a viewpoint creating less than complete illustrated editions.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

In my book there is a "nice" little drawing of dead elves as well as one of a dead Glaurung. I would say that both these drawings has what you ask for, the first one is quite brutal (but not vulgar) and the second one has a monster.

The conserns about what is potrayed might not be baseless, but they are certainly not as big problems as they are made out to be. . . . We all want different things and most of the time we don't get what we want.
I would have like to see sertain landscapes in the illustrations, but other motives where picked. That is too bad, but I doubt that it is because of some plot against these particular landscapes.

Don't blow things out of porportion

And just for the record: I belive that it does matter if the battles and killings are written in great graphic detail or not. If a writter finds something important they will put extra focus on the event, point it out to you.
Now Tolkien seldom goes into great detail about the killings and battles, but yet there is quite a lot of them. The thing is that war is what drives these kind of stories about heros and their deeds, that Tolkien wanted to write. If you look at what he spends time on, it is what goes on between charachters (and sometimes he likes to descripe a landscape), he seldom uses alot of time on the battle itself. The battle is there because it needs to be in order to drive the story forth.

Yes killings has a place in the story, but the main focus does not lie on how many orcs Turin killed and how he killed them.

At least that is my take on it, not having given it very much thought.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Simply because Tolkien does not describe the step by step process in the killing of each of tens of thousands of beings, does not mean that it is not violent in its own right. How can you write a book with all of that killing, battles, wars, destruction, murder and mayhem and then take the high road saying its really not his cup of tea? To suggest otherwise is to put on a nice shiny pair of the rosiest glasses ever invented. The action and darker side of the Middle-earth stories are as much as what Tolkien is as anything else in the books.

I simply disagree with both your sanitized view of what is in the books and the Tolkien Estates carrying out of such a viewpoint creating less than complete illustrated editions.

Yes but you still haven't told us exactly what kind of imagery you'd like to se in the books. As Rune points out, there are a number of images of Glaurung, of Orcs of dead warriors in the book, & the imagery (particularly the black & white imagery) is quite dark.

Tolkien made a conscious decision not to go into explicit detail as regards the depiction of violence (& made the same decision as regards 'Orcish' speech) & the Estate have made the same decision as regards its depiction in the imagery used. In fact, he didn't go into much detail in the description of his monsters - hence the arguments re Balrog's wings. Personally, I don't want such lurid images in Tolkien's books so I'm happy with that decision.

[Sauron the White]

Yes but you still haven't told us exactly what kind of imagery you'd like to se in the books

Perhaps it would help if I use but a single chapter from the latest book THE CHILDREN OF HURIN. Lets use an early chapter - II The Battle of Unnumbered Tears. The only illustration in this entire chapter is the very small b&w heading peice above the chapter title on page 52 featuring a group of soldiers standing still and doing what? Watching a soccer game? Waiting for the lunchline to move a bit faster? Asked to all say cheese in the group photo? Who knows since there is no story element or drama to this piece of any kind.

Here is a list of possible scenes in this chapter which would make far better illustrations cappturing great moments that JRRT writes of.

p. 53 - Fingon looks north and beholds Thangorodrim
p. 54 the host of Morgoth marching out of Angband
p. 55 Gwindor slaying the heralds of Angband
p. 56 the light of drawing of swords of the Noldor like a filed of reeds
p. 56 fighting in the courts of Angband
p. 57 Turgon hewes through ranks of orcs to get to the side of his brother
p. 58 Turgon vs. Gothmog
p. 59 All the hosts of Angband encircle the House of Haldor
p. 60 Hurin slaying the trolls as they attempt to capture him... or
p. 60 a bound Hurin being led by Gothmog to Angband

There are ten different ideas for illustrations which would be dramatic and have great possibility. I am not suggesting that each be illustrated and the book turned into a comic novel. Any one would have been far better than the lead in illustration which was selected. Several would have made beautiful color plates especially the drawing of swords on page 56.

[-silverqueen666]

few whispers here and an unknown director poking their head out there and plans have been put in place to film select stories out of the silmarillion that can make a connection enough to provide a story line that can continue to the hobbit and lotr movies. The unknown director is rumored to be DC Anderson or an AJ Walkin.

(sorry my cousin wont stop bugging me until i write this on every tolkien forum,but i and i'm also speaking for my cousin hope this little rumor she heard from her production team boyfriend is true)

[William Cloud Hicklin]

few whispers here and an unknown director poking their head out there and plans have been put in place to film select stories out of the silmarillion that can make a connection enough to provide a story line that can continue to the hobbit and lotr movies. The unknown director is rumored to be DC Anderson or an AJ Walkin.

Sorry, not true. The Silmarillion film rights have not been sold and are not for sale. Period. (And, no, that's not going to change when Christopher Tolkien passes Over Sea).

[-silverqueen666]

you know saying something will never happen is just pure ignorance...what will you be doing in ten years and you better be correct.

sorry but people who say something will never happen or that something is impossible really get to me

[William Cloud Hicklin]

SQ:

1) The Simarillion rights have not been sold. That's simple fact.

2) Christopher Tolkien has declared that he will never sell them so long as he is alive.

3) Adam Tolkien shares his father's position

Since I'm in personal contact with both Tolkiens, I think I am in a rather better position to know than your cousin with her little rumor she heard from her production team boyfriend.

Sure, the unforseen can always arise. The world might end. Hollywood might get nuked by al-Qaeda. Christopher's lawyer son Simon might launch a campaign to seize control of the estate from his stepmother and half-brother. But the notion that right now, March 2009, anybody in the film industry has 'plans' for a Silmarillion project is, in a word, bogus.