Welcome to our forum! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! Plus you won't see ads ;)
Okay, before everyone tries to impale me on a stick for making yet another thread on the same day, i just wanted to know. Wouldn't you thinmk it would be interesting to see a movie version of Silmarillion? Or at least a television special on it?
does anyone agree w/ me? That when they make movies of books it destroys the immagination? they tend to demolish any trace of a picture that you have in your head of a charicters immage or of what, for example the great city of Minis Anor looks like while under seige, or whatthe proud figure of Elessar looks like as he stands next to the great stone, summoning ghosts of oath-breakers?
In Tolkien's essay "On Fairy Tales," he wrote something to the effect that fantasy stories should not contain illustrations because of the negative impact on imagination. Of course, he contradicts himself by including his own artwork of Middle-earth in his oeuvre.
This is a surprising post because one of my grade 9 students last year (who is becoming a good ME buff). Asked me this same question. He thinks they should make it into a movie, but I told him that with Hollywood the way it is, it would only cater to a specific audience. I agree that there is not enough dialogue, so a screenwriter would have to blaspheme the story and make some up...Sil would be a very difficult story to give justice to in a 2 hour movie.
Mind you, a six part mini-series might be an interesting venture...
Imagine what a room full of Hollywood Executives would do if you said to them, "I know guys, why don't we make a movie out of the Old Testiment?". The scope and range of such a task would be highly daunting, as would making the Silmarillon into a film. Even as a mini series it would take up more then the usual 13 to 20 hours devoted to a regular season of a series!! I actually kind of like the idea of making people READ this kind of mythology...Granted, I would REALLY like to have it be a spoken history...Imagine what it would be like at age 7 to have someone like the Author tell you these tales.
One thing that I am highly enthused by is the sheer number of young readers out there who have even BOTHERED to read these stories. My fear was that, with so many movies and television shows out there, the upcomming generation would have forsaken reading for the Instant Gratification of Popular Media. But there are so many folks under the age of 18 on here that have READ Tolkien...I'm very glad to have been wrong in my fears...
There have been made movies about some events in the Old Testament, Moses for example. I hope that the upcomming LoTR movies will make more people read the books, and if they find LoTR interestingm they may read other books by Tolkien. But as I see it, you don't get the right "picture" by starting with the movie, because a person tends to remember what he/she saw better than what he/she read..
exactly Telchar. I am really excited to see the upcoming movie. But I am half prepared to be disappointed in it(more specifically parts of it). One example is the characters. Most of them seem to be one the mark, but for some reason I really am unhappy with the way Sam, Merry, and Pippin were cast. They are probably good actors, but they are not how I pictured them. Now I wonder if after seeing the movie, and reading the books again, will I invision what I think it is, or see parts of a movie? Also I really don't want the LoTR to become more of a household name. Sure there will be some out there that have not read it yet, and will then read it and love it; but there will even more out there that will see it, not understand it for the first time through the books and write it off as another dungens and dragons, not as good as Star Wars, almost trekie fantasy load of crap.
Well, I meant not the entire Silmarillion, that would be an impossibl task, but some favorite parts. Numenore, Ungoliant and Melkor's destruction of the two trees. The five battles would be a bit to much thought. Yet they would be bale to break it down a bit.
I think it's alrady frightening enought that LotR is being made into a movie. Even if I though that the Silmarillion should be made into a film (which I most certainly do not), there is no way that it could even be translated in such a way that would make sense to a modern audience without totally destroying the stories contained therein.
theres obviously a lot of discussion over at the CA boards about the movie and whether or not we think they are gonna portray the books well enough. for the most part, actually about 99% of everybody is all for it and they think that its going to be amazing. i think the same thing but i have a few gripes about it. i know this should be done over at the LOTR's board, sorry every1. but "spider orcs" that climb on walls? come on. lol. and yeah the silmarillion wouldnt make a good movie. most movie goers arent imaginative enough to handle something like that. =)
"The Silmarillion" wouldn't work as a movie, but individual tales would. 'Beren and Luthien,' 'Turin Turambar and Nienor Niniel,' and 'Tuor and Idril Celebrindal and Earendil and Elwing' all have the drama and the romantic interest to carry a movie, even by Hollywood standards. However, I wouldn't let that rat bastard Peter Jackson make the films.
Yes, I agree. They would not handle the Silmarillion well at all. Who knows what they would change, and obviously for teh worse, for the Sil. is a work of genious as it is, and should not be touched by any director.
Gimme the coin and the freedom and I'll make a good movie. My problem with the bastard Peter Jackson is that he obviously doesn't love (or even care about) the story. A director who gave a damn could probably do a decent job. I don't so much mind taking out Tom Bombadil, because ultimately it's not essential to the story, but by changing characters' fundamental roles within the story he does fundamentally change it to an entirely different story than that intended. I mean, why didn't the bastard Peter Jackson make Bilbo part of the Fellowship. After all, that might have pandered to an elderly audience.
LOL, very well said Illuvatar. I'm actually surprised they didn't. Jackson is obviously trying to have the movie appeal to a broader audience. By making Arwen a warrior princess he appeals to xena fans. By taking out Bombadil he appeals to, well, possibly, well I have no answer to that. Maybe that attracts idiots who screw up movies to get more money in their already bursting wallets!!! I really am displeased by his changes, but in the end we will pay that admission price, for a large number of times, I am sure. Simple scenes send us into a commotion, imagine the whole movie. I know some of us here will see it more then the biggest fan of Titanic saw Titanic! You know who you are. So in the end, the movie will not change to suit our opinions, and we will still see it anyway.
lol aint that the truth. and man i was really upset when i found out that they took out bombadil! he was probably my fav character! how could they leave him out?! aaahhhh. lol. and spider orcs!? come on. why dont we make merry a girl and add a little love story in the mix between merry and frodo!? ggrrrr, but yeah im still gonna see it about 10 times in the theatres...lol =( im weak
I dunno, why did the BBC leave Bombadil out of the Radio Series? Probably because of all the characters in the series, he has the least impact on the story. In fact, I have, for many years, been left with the feeling that he was only included in the books to give the reader a sense of how important it was to destroy the Ring. I mean, you meet Tom B. and realize that he does not fall victim to the dark power of the Ring, and that he is also amazingly powerfull, but Elrond STILL says that it would not be safe in his care. This is better then my original feeling that he was only introduced into LotR as a set up for a later story about him.
As for making a movie out of the Silmarillion, it just would not work, from a cinematic or monetary stance. Less then 10% of the entire book is Dialog, so someone would have to assume that they know the players in the stories well enough to actually write the lines for them, and then there is the problem of the fact that it takes place over what could possibly be tens, if not hundreds of thousands of years...
I think that between LotR, a story out of Silm/HoME/UT, and the Hobbit, the Hobbit would make the best movie if the effort PJ took was placed into this one book. It is a fairly simple story...no complex storyline, plenty of dialogue, action, adventure, and an interesting plot.
AND the Hobbit is completly 'stand-alone', meaning it doesn't require any background info (except 'And What is a Hobbit?')