Silmarillion-movie?

[davem]

But we saw with the BBC radio production of LotR that the scripts were sent to CT for approval & he responded positively, & even sent a cassette of pronunciations to enable them to get it right. It strikes me that CT (& by extention the Estate) is not wholly against dramatisations, just that, if they are to be done with his approval they should be done right.

CoH would be a particularly difficult story to adapt, for the reasons I've given. You can't introduce light moments into the story because they would jar, & you can't have any sense of victory at the end because that would destroy the effect. And tacking on a reference to Turin's killing of Morgoth at the end would seem fake (bit like the ending of the original version of Blade Runner)

Beren & Luthien would bring other problems. This story was so personal to JRRT that I suspect CT would be most loathe to see that touched. FoG is most likely to succeed as a movie.

Hollywood is looking for profits, & tends to put any thoughts of art to the back of its mind, & goes out of its way to avoid anything controversial - look at what they've done with the adaptation of Pullman's HDM - the 'anti-Christian' aspect of the story is gone purely to avoid upsetting the Christian lobby in the US. An unpleasant hero who marries his sister & kills himself at the end is hardly likely to appeal to studio execs. Of course, another 'Tolkien' story would attract them, but I suspect that the studios who are probably still desperate to buy the movie rights know nothing about CoH beyond the Tolkien name.

[Aiwendil]

Seems to me there are two separate questions: 1. Could good cinematic adaptations of 'Turin', 'Beren and Luthien', etc., be made and 2. Would a good cinematic adaptation be made if these rights came into the hands of a Hollywood studio.

I'd say the answer to the first question is probably 'yes' and the answer to the second almost certainly 'no'. That a story include humor, romance, and a happy ending are not necessary criteria for cinematic success, though they may be necessary criteria for getting a movie made in Hollywood today, in practice. Is the tone of the 'Narn', after all, so different from that of, e.g., The Seventh Seal? One would be hard-pressed to claim that the latter story was unsuited for cinematic presentation. (I must confess that I've sometimes fantasized about an Ingmar Bergman-directed 'Children of Hurin' with Max van Sydow as Turin).

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Just hearing the tales of illustrators and all the hoops they have to jump through in getting the approval of the Estate on their work, has a chilling effect.

That's a bit unfair. Naismith etc have said that the rein is in fact quite light- the Estate doesn't want an overemphasis on 'monsters.'

The difficulties you bring up as to involving the Estate in any way as a 'partner' or with 'creative control' are indeed enormous, even insuperable- and Christopher certainly feels that way. Film rights to any of the First Age material will only be sold over his dead body, literally. There is no wiggle-room in that position. From where CRT sits, Art is bloody unlikely* and he doesn't need the Cash. Adam's comments at the book's release party run in the same vein- he wants his gaffer to be remembered as an author, not a first-draft screenwriter.

(Incidentally, CRT is not some reactionary snob who despises "popular culture." In fact he's quite the cinema-goer)

* Face it, any Hollywood attempt at CoH would likely be as big a travesty as Zemeckis' Beowulf, with a hot Grendel's Ma (Angelina Jolie nekkid) attempting to seduce the hero!

[William Cloud Hicklin]

(I must confess that I've sometimes fantasized about an Ingmar Bergman-directed 'Children of Hurin' with Max van Sydow as Turin).

I love it! (Although I could also see Jurgen Prochnow in the lead role).

What about Peter Brook? At least, unlike Bergman, he's still alive.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

* Face it, any Hollywood attempt at CoH would likely be as big a travesty as Zemeckis' Beowulf, with a hot Grendel's Ma (Angelina Jolie nekkid) attempting to seduce the hero!

I'm looking forwards to that one! Of course it has Neil Gaiman onboard and thus it will be a must-see for me (though I doubt I'll get to the cinema for it ). I think the OTT, dark, comic book gorefest can be as far removed from Hollywood as the Indie flick is. But then that's a matter of personal taste I guess.

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Some here want a more independent shall we say boutique studio process which would go outside the Hollywood system in the manner of a small independent film. And how do you make movies of the various SIL tales on a small budget? After people saw the $300 million dollar LOTR films and all the attendant glitz and hoopla on the screen, how do you get them to settle for the look of a bare bones small indie production that looks more like a TV show ala HERCULES or XENA?

What was wrong with Xena?

In any case, as the BBC have been proving lately, a TV company can pump out shows of superior cinema quality, so why not let them do it? They've become old hands at fantasy and sci/fi lately what with Doctor Who, Torchwood, Robin Hood and the spectacular Gormenghast. Or why not have one of the 'foreign language' (as the Oscars Academy dub 'em) directors handle it as they seem to be able to take on dark stories with skill - see Alfonso Cuaron. Or even Terry Gilliam?

[Sauron the White]

from me

Quote:

Just hearing the tales of illustrators and all the hoops they have to jump through in getting the approval of the Estate on their work, has a chilling effect.

from William CH

That's a bit unfair. Naismith etc have said that the rein is in fact quite light- the Estate doesn't want an overemphasis on 'monsters.'

What people say for public consumption is one thing. What they say in more private discussions may be another. I know of no illustrator or artist who is going to go out of his or her way to say anything bad about the Estate process for fear of costing themselves jobs over the years. That is simply a fact of business.

If the Estate has apprehension about the depiction of monsters, perhaps they should excise them from the tales in the next editions. Absurd I realize. Their particular feelings about "monsters" are something that has evolved over time and now gets in the way. Just look at CoH and its obvious. Same thing with the newer SIL illustrations. You can show sweeping Middle-earth vistas over and over again but better not show the monsters. Why? I have no idea.

I cannot imagine any filmmaker willing to take on that type of overseer or adviser, spend hundreds of millions of dollars, and expect to have something that will return their investment. Just is not going to happen until the Estate undergoes a far different makeup.

davem said

Beren & Luthien would bring other problems. This story was so personal to JRRT that I suspect CT would be most loathe to see that touched.

I feel you are 100% right on the money. I have always felt that the story of Beren & Luthien is by far the most appealing of the entire SIL. It has every single ingredient that would make for a great film and one with the widest possible audience appeal. Because of the obstacles you cite, I do not expect to see it in my lifetime.

[davem]

(re-posting as myself - if anyone just saw this under Lal's name)

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

What people say for public consumption is one thing. What they say in more private discussions may be another. I know of no illustrator or artist who is going to go out of his or her way to say anything bad about the Estate process for fear of costing themselves jobs over the years. That is simply a fact of business.

I'm sorry, but do you have any evidence for that statement? The Estate costing artists jobs??? This seems to be bordering on paranoia.

If the Estate has apprehension about the depiction of monsters, perhaps they should excise them from the tales in the next editions. Absurd I realize. Their particular feelings about "monsters" are something that has evolved over time and now gets in the way. Just look at CoH and its obvious. Same thing with the newer SIL illustrations. You can show sweeping Middle-earth vistas over and over again but better not show the monsters. Why? I have no idea.

CT has never objected to depictions of monsters per se. The 'objection', such as it is, is against an over emphasis on the monsters, not a ban. All the 'official' artists, Lee, Howe, Naismith, have depicted monsters in their work. Just taking the cover paintings of HoM-e we see Dragons on BoLT1&2 & Morgoth on LoB & Morgoth's Ring (along with Shelob btw).

I cannot imagine any filmmaker willing to take on that type of overseer or adviser, spend hundreds of millions of dollars, and expect to have something that will return their investment. Just is not going to happen until the Estate undergoes a far different makeup.

Luckily for film-makers the Estate is not trying to force themselves on them. Its not obligatory for movies to be made. If any movie makers out there would like to be excused from the struggle & effort of trying to make movies of Tolkien's works I'm sure the Estate will write them a note.....

[Lalaith]

I must confess that I've sometimes fantasized about an Ingmar Bergman-directed 'Children of Hurin' with Max van Sydow as Turin).

You're not the only one, m'dear.
http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpos...&postcount=281

Only *I* got told the idea was "completely bizarre"....

[DuncanIdaho]

Originally Posted by davem

But we saw with the BBC radio production of LotR that the scripts were sent to CT for approval & he responded positively, & even sent a cassette of pronunciations to enable them to get it right. It strikes me that CT (& by extention the Estate) is not wholly against dramatisations, just that, if they are to be done with his approval they should be done right.

CoH would be a particularly difficult story to adapt, for the reasons I've given. You can't introduce light moments into the story because they would jar, & you can't have any sense of victory at the end because that would destroy the effect. And tacking on a reference to Turin's killing of Morgoth at the end would seem fake (bit like the ending of the original version of Blade Runner)

Beren & Luthien would bring other problems. This story was so personal to JRRT that I suspect CT would be most loathe to see that touched. FoG is most likely to succeed as a movie.

Hollywood is looking for profits, & tends to put any thoughts of art to the back of its mind, & goes out of its way to avoid anything controversial - look at what they've done with the adaptation of Pullman's HDM - the 'anti-Christian' aspect of the story is gone purely to avoid upsetting the Christian lobby in the US. An unpleasant hero who marries his sister & kills himself at the end is hardly likely to appeal to studio execs. Of course, another 'Tolkien' story would attract them, but I suspect that the studios who are probably still desperate to buy the movie rights know nothing about CoH beyond the Tolkien name.

Are you forgetting that a good ending to a movie is subjective? There are many people who look for dark, tenebrous endings in a film. (There are many dark films.)

Hollywood, the film industry is also looking for innovatory, inventive ways of approaching a film. CoH would present a challenge.

[Lothriel]

I was wondering what the legality would be behind a non-profit, fan based project based on one or more stories from The Silmarillion?

Looking around I've found conflicting views on it. Some say it's fine as long as you don't quote directly from the books. But then again the Tolkien Estate has taken people to court simply for having part of a "Tolkien" name in a web address. ("Shire" supposidly being exclusively the intellectual property of Tolkien Estate. Wonder if my beloved home of Ayrshire knows this?)

I know that this may have been discussed in several topics already, but it would take far longer to look through this massive forum than to just dredge it up here. ^^

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Lothriel

I was wondering what the legality would be behind a non-profit, fan based project based on one or more stories from The Silmarillion?

Looking around I've found conflicting views on it. Some say it's fine as long as you don't quote directly from the books. But then again the Tolkien Estate has taken people to court simply for having part of a "Tolkien" name in a web address. ("Shire" supposidly being exclusively the intellectual property of Tolkien Estate. Wonder if my beloved home of Ayrshire knows this?)

I know that this may have been discussed in several topics already, but it would take far longer to look through this massive forum than to just dredge it up here. ^^

I think that all the name trademarks belong to Saul Zaentz - however as to fan projects this is from the ESTATE's website http://www.tolkienestate.com/faq/p_2/

Can I / someone else write / complete / develop my / their own version of one of these unfinished tales ? (or any others)
The simple answer is NO.
You are of course free to do whatever you like for your own private enjoyment, but there is no question of any commercial exploitation of this form of "fan-fiction".
Also, in these days of the Internet, and privately produced collectors’ items for sale on eBay, we must make it as clear as possible that the Tolkien Estate never has, and never will authorize the commercialisation or distribution of any works of this type.
The Estate exists to defend the integrity of J.R.R. Tolkien’s writings. Christopher Tolkien's work as his father’s literary executor has always been to publish as faithfully and honestly as possible his father's completed and uncompleted works, without adaptation or embellishment.

So the answer is that you can do what you like as long as it is purely for your own amusement but try to profit from it in anyway and the estate will come down on you like a ton of bricks. Which is fair enough - especially since the recent legislation seems to indicate that the Jackson trilogy was non-profit.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by DuncanIdaho

Are you forgetting that a good ending to a movie is subjective? There are many people who look for dark, tenebrous endings in a film. (There are many dark films.)

Hollywood, the film industry is also looking for innovatory, inventive ways of approaching a film. CoH would present a challenge.

Yes. Movies don't necessarily need to have a happy ending. Why, just look at The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas. It was really really sad. CoH would be a good try, but I think the fans ought to make it, like they did that one, The Hunt for Gollum. Anyone out here seen it?

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

Yes. Movies don't necessarily need to have a happy ending. Why, just look at The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas. It was really really sad.

Yes, but even if we ignore the copyright issue, I can't see The Children of Hurin being a major studio release, at least not without being more hacked around than Gelmir of Nargothrond. (Sorry.)

A fan film is a possibility, though.

Originally Posted by Galadriel

CoH would be a good try, but I think the fans ought to make it, like they did that one, The Hunt for Gollum. Anyone out here seen it?

You may be interested in the thread discussing it here.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Yes, but even if we ignore the copyright issue, I can't see The Children of Hurin being a major studio release, at least not without being more hacked around than Gelmir of Nargothrond. (Sorry.)

A fan film is a possibility, though.



You may be interested in the thread discussing it here.

Actually, you're quite right. CoH would be nice for us Tolkien fans, but for anyone who isn't familiar with ME is going to hate it. It's not really a book that can be made into a triumph. It will probably end up like one of those old Macbeth movies.

[Arvegil145]

I think Peter Jackson should make a movie out of Silmarilion , beacuse there is The Lord of the Rings movie, soon it will be The Hobbit movie, so why not Silmarilion movie? I read both silmarilion and LOTR and I would give anything to see this movie, I mean it would be awsome

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

I think Peter Jackson should make a movie out of Silmarilion , beacuse there is The Lord of the Rings movie, soon it will be The Hobbit movie, so why not Silmarilion movie? I read both silmarilion and LOTR and I would give anything to see this movie, I mean it would be awsome

Jackson will never get the rights to the Silmarillion. No one will. Not in our lifetimes. Or at least my lifetime, I don't know how old you are.

[Adaneth]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Yes, but even if we ignore the copyright issue, I can't see The Children of Hurin being a major studio release, at least not without being more hacked around than Gelmir of Nargothrond. (Sorry.)

I can't see The Children of Hurin (or for that matter, any part of the Silmarillion) as a studio release either, but what I can see it as is a miniseries on a premium cable channel like HBO. (Aforementioned copyright aside). A miniseries on premium cable would eliminate potential problems of a mainstream release. There would be no qualms about the incest, the suicides, the dark mood, and a hero that isn't squeaky-clean. (As a matter of fact, cable seems to actively embrace kind of material.)

That said, there's also the issue of actual adaptation of the material (which will likely include newly-written dialogue) and casting for a movie/miniseries. Done well, it would be be absolutely epic. Done wrong, it would be downright terrible. And the possibility alone of a horrible adaptation makes me kind of not want one at all.

I'm not holding my breath for any adaptations; it's something I'd like to see if it's ever possible, but I'm sure that I could live without it.