JRR Tolkien Discussion

[Silver Nemesis]

On the one hand, more Tolkien isn't a bad thing. But on the other hand, I do wonder about the possibility of diminishing the power of LOTR. Put it down to Prequel Syndrome but sometimes discovering the history of a fictional world isn't necessarily a good thing. For example, Star Wars prequels. And yet, what I've read of Ainulindalë and Valaquenta from the iTunes Store is absolutely tantalizing.

One thing that separates Tolkien's First Age stories from Lucas' Prequel Trilogy is that the former can be enjoyed on its own without prior knowledge of The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings, while the Star Wars PT is unlikely to mean much to someone who doesn't already know who Darth Vader is. This touches on a wider problem with the Star Wars movies in general: namely their longstanding inability to break away from the Original Trilogy (videogames like Knights of the Old Republic have accomplished this, while the films arguably haven't). The Prequel and Sequel Trilogies are both far too beholden to those first three films, and neither has enough unique ideas to stand on its own.

Just imagine Revenge of the Sith or The Force Awakens stripped of all connections to the OT. Would either one come close to A New Hope or The Empire Strikes Back? I would say not. By contrast, the different eras of Tolkien's mythology can be enjoyed in isolation. You don't need to have read The Silmarillion to enjoy the tales of the Third Age. Though saying this, there are characters such as Elrond and Sauron who crop up in both eras. But recognising those characters and their connections to other stories is only a fraction of what makes the mythology special, whereas the fan service connectivity between Star Wars films has sadly become one of the few things keeping the series alive.

Since it's probably just a matter of time until other Tolkien works are adapted into film or TV (which I don't necessarily think is a good idea, I'll say it right now), I have to wonder how Ainulindalë and Valaquenta in live action might play out since it's so cerebral to start with.

A part of me would love to see them adapted, but a more cynical part of me wouldn't. On the one hand they're great stories, well paced and efficiently structured, with unforgettable characters and imagery, and I can see them making incredible films if properly adapted. On the other hand, I just don't trust anyone in Hollywood to get them right.

One of the classic archetypes of fantasy fiction is the Dark Lord – the ultimate villain who wields supreme power over the forces of evil. Voldemort is referred to as a Dark Lord in the Harry Potter universe, and then there are the Dark Lords of the Sith in Star Wars. I'm open to correction on this point, but I'm pretty sure it was Tolkien who first coined the term 'Dark Lord' in this context. And there are two Dark Lords in his legendarium: Sauron, Dark Lord of the Second and Third Ages, and Morgoth, Dark Lord of the First Age.

Now since Tolkien composed his mythology of the First Age before he wrote The Lord of the Rings, that would make Morgoth the original Dark Lord. He is also arguably the most evil and powerful example of this archetype. And yet to date he remains a purely literary figure and has never once appeared in any adaptations (that I'm aware of). Just imagine how popular he'd be if portrayed accurately in a high quality film. The tale of how he was once Melkor, the fairest and most powerful of the Ainur...

...who succumbed to evil and became the Dark Lord Morgoth...

...has the potential to be the greatest fantasy film of all time. Like a much, much better version of Revenge of the Sith, serving as an allegory for the tale of Lucifer from the Old Testament. A 3-hour epic that faithfully adapts the Ainulindalë, Valaquenta and the first 18 chapters of the Quenta Silmarillion could be the genre film to end all genre films. It would also be a great setup for sequels adapted from the other First Age stories. But any filmmaker who'd take on such a momentous challenge would have to be immensely talented in order to translate the imaginative scope of Tolkien's writing onto the big screen. How could the cosmic events of the Ainulindalë be visualised? You'd literarily have to depict God creating the universe, and that's no mean feat. I can subjectively visualise it in my head when I read the book, but translating it to screen in such a way that would be objectively comprehensible to other people is another thing entirely.

But if there's a suitably talented filmmaker out there who's up for the challenge, and provided they have a solid understanding and appreciation of the source material, then I say good luck to them.

[thecolorsblend]

Heh, visually and sonically, it's a hard story to adapt. The themes of Eru alone would be challenging because we're talking about themes composed by God Himself. So wtf does that even sound like?

If the story is done as a prologue to some other Silmarillion tale, I guess the director could cheat and do it in an abstract animated style along the lines of The Tale of the Three Brothers:

That alleviates the risk of a cheesy Clash Of The Titans 2010 thing. But even it raises a bunch of new challenges, not least of them is butchering the story by cutting it down to a 10 minute prologue leading into something else when it could just as easily be a mega-epic all by itself.

I remember when people said LOTR was unfilmable. But almost everything from The Silmarillion truly is unfilmable. I have no illusions that being unfilmable will stop anybody though.

[Silver Nemesis]

The first trailer for Fox Searchlight's Tolkien biopic has been released.

[thecolorsblend]

...

Yeah, I'm so there.

[thecolorsblend]

Second trailer

Impressions: The first trailer was more abstract and impressionistic. This one showcases the more conventional aspects of the film. The collage approach was powerful and moody in the first trailer but this trailer promises a movie which is a bit more traditional. I plan to see the film no matter what. It's about Tolkien (which is enough by itself) but the cast looks as close to perfect as I could hope for. But I'm really digging the tone and cinematography it looks like the film will showcase.

All in all, I have no particular criticism of this thing so far. It just looks GREAT.

[thecolorsblend]

To get back on topic a bit more, there's some news.

Amazon Prime's new map welcomes us to the Second Age
http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2019/03/07/105938-amazon-primes-new-map-welcomes-us-to-the-second-age

So basically this show will (or could) follow the Numenorian kings, the settlements of the elves and goings on with "Annatar" and those things? Sounds intriguing.

Also, TORN is regarding this as roundabout confirmation that Amazon Prime have the rights to a hell of a lot more than just what's between the covers of Th Hobbit and LOTR.

The usual disclaimer applies. I don't need more movies or shows about Tolkien's material. Some literature works just fine without those things and of all people Tolkien has nothing to prove to anybody. But if it's happening no matter what... well, I'm game to give this a fair chance.

[Silver Nemesis]

Second trailer

Impressions: The first trailer was more abstract and impressionistic. This one showcases the more conventional aspects of the film. The collage approach was powerful and moody in the first trailer but this trailer promises a movie which is a bit more traditional. I plan to see the film no matter what. It's about Tolkien (which is enough by itself) but the cast looks as close to perfect as I could hope for. But I'm really digging the tone and cinematography it looks like the film will showcase.

All in all, I have no particular criticism of this thing so far. It just looks GREAT.

I'm keeping an open mind about this film. There's no real mystery surrounding Tolkien. He was an interesting chap with a very strong personality, and that's all well documented in his letters. If they can accurately capture the man behind the writing, then I'll count the film a success. The fact they show him discussing his love of language in the trailer is a good sign. I'm looking forward to it. I'm particularly keen to know who's playing C. S. Lewis and how big a role he'll have in the film.

Regarding the final shot of the trailer, I wonder who the figure in the clouds is meant to represent.

Some are speculating it's Sauron and the Nazgûl. But if this is a projection of Tolkien's imagination at the time of World War One, then it would make more sense for it to be Morgoth.

To get back on topic a bit more, there's some news.

Amazon Prime's new map welcomes us to the Second Age
http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2019/03/07/105938-amazon-primes-new-map-welcomes-us-to-the-second-age

So basically this show will (or could) follow the Numenorian kings, the settlements of the elves and goings on with "Annatar" and those things? Sounds intriguing.

The Second Age was the Dark Age of Tolkien's mythology. There are many intriguing events from that era which could be expanded into exciting sagas (for example, the fate of the Blue Wizards – the two mysterious Istari who disappeared on a mission to the east of Middle-earth). Then again, Tolkien intentionally chose not to expand on those tales and left them shrouded in mystery. If the writers can focus on smaller narratives set against the backdrop of the Second Age's major events, without contradicting Tolkien's lore, then it might work. Alternatively, it could end up being bad fan fiction like the material Jackson added to The Hobbit films.

The usual disclaimer applies. I don't need more movies or shows about Tolkien's material. Some literature works just fine without those things and of all people Tolkien has nothing to prove to anybody. But if it's happening no matter what... well, I'm game to give this a fair chance.

That's fair enough. As we've said before, Tolkien's writing is the only true canon. For me, the books will always come first. Even if the new series is terrible, it won't damage the mythology (unlike certain recent additions to the Star Wars saga). It could be a lot of fun, provided they adhere to Tolkien's ideas and don't try to modernise it. I'll give it a chance.

By the way colors, do you mind if I change the title of this discussion to something more general like 'The Tolkien Thread'? The conversation has expanded beyond the TV show to include the books and upcoming biopic, so we may as well make this the thread for all things Tolkien related.

[thecolorsblend]

I'm keeping an open mind about this film. There's no real mystery surrounding Tolkien. He was an interesting chap with a very strong personality, and that's all well documented in his letters. If they can accurately capture the man behind the writing, then I'll count the film a success. The fact they show him discussing his love of language in the trailer is a good sign. I'm looking forward to it. I'm particularly keen to know who's playing C. S. Lewis and how big a role he'll have in the film.

The Lewis angle has me curious as well. It's kind of an obvious element to play up in a movie like this since Tolkien is remembered as a kind, somewhat soft-spoken man while Lewis (right or wrong) is remembered as a blustery, ready-fire-aim, Type-A personality. The contrast is a welcome addition for dramatic reasons, if nothing else.

Of particular interest for me is the issue of religion as it concerned both men.

Regarding the final shot of the trailer, I wonder who the figure in the clouds is meant to represent.

Some are speculating it's Sauron and the Nazgûl. But if this is a projection of Tolkien's imagination at the time of World War One, then it would make more sense for it to be Morgoth.

Considering the LOTR references in both trailers so far, I assume that the figure is a visual allusion to Sauron.

In fact, that leads in to one of my few concerns about the movie. These trailers (which lack context, I acknowledge) almost seem to suggest that LOTR was born in the foxholes of World War I trench battles. Or perhaps even before that time, going back to Tolkien's early courtship of his wife. But (without double-checking the timeline), my recollection is that Tolkien didn't really set pen to paper on LOTR until around 1938 or so. And then only as a request by his publisher for a sequel to The Hobbit. And even then, only after they politely declined to publish The Silmarillion.

Long after World War I, in other words.

But maybe those are quibbles? Either way, the most famous Tolkien villain is probably Sauron so I'd wager that's what the dark figure is generally suggesting.

The Second Age was the Dark Age of Tolkien's mythology. There are many intriguing events from that era which could be expanded into exciting sagas (for example, the fate of the Blue Wizards – the two mysterious Istari who disappeared on a mission to the east of Middle-earth). Then again, Tolkien intentionally chose not to expand on those tales and left them shrouded in mystery. If the writers can focus on smaller narratives set against the backdrop of the Second Age's major events, without contradicting Tolkien's lore, then it might work. Alternatively, it could end up being bad fan fiction like the material Jackson added to The Hobbit films.

Quite true. All of that.

Still, it's a creative risk. The general public has overall less familiarity with the Second Age and there are fewer direct connections between that material and the more famous LOTR/Hobbit material. Spending this much time and this much money on something which the broad masses are less familiar with is a spectacularly brave decision. The "Aragorn prequel show" that was rumored would've been a far safer choice.

Granted, taking risks doesn't automatically make for a quality product. I'm only suggesting that this is less a cynical cash-grab than it might've been.

That's fair enough. As we've said before, Tolkien's writing is the only true canon. For me, the books will always come first. Even if the new series is terrible, it won't damage the mythology (unlike certain recent additions to the Star Wars saga). It could be a lot of fun, provided they adhere to Tolkien's ideas and don't try to modernise it. I'll give it a chance.

Fair enough. You and I seem to have very similar philosophical qualms with modern day Hollywood. So I believe you're right to be guarded about this.

By the way colors, do you mind if I change the title of this discussion to something more general like 'The Tolkien Thread'? The conversation has expanded beyond the TV show to include the books and upcoming biopic, so we may as well make this the thread for all things Tolkien related.

Change it to whatever you like. And if the focus shifts later on, feel free to change it again if you need to. We don't seem to have much company in this thread so I doubt it'll be a major thing.

Still, you might want to use a bit more a generic title like "JRR Tolkien Discussion" or some such since a movie is coming soon called simply Tolkien and your casual suggestion could be slightly misleading... or perhaps I'm overthinking it. Anyway, JRR Tolkien Discussion, The Middle-earth Thread or whatever you think is best will work fine.

To be totally honest about it, this thread has already last three pages longer than I ever thought it would.

[Silver Nemesis]

Of particular interest for me is the issue of religion as it concerned both men.

Knowing Hollywood, I wouldn't be surprised if the movie tried to downplay that aspect of their friendship. If the filmmakers really want to explore the major influences in Tolkien's life, then they have to address his Catholicism. It influenced the moral themes and imagery of his writing to the extent that he once described The Lord of the Rings as "a fundamentally religious and Catholic work". If the film attempts to secularise his life story, or downplay the integral role his faith played in almost every aspect of it, then it'll constitute a betrayal of the man's values and worldview. It would be as gross an oversight as ignoring the fact he was a philologist or that he served in the First World War.

Of course there's no reason to think the filmmakers would overlook this important aspect of Tolkien's life. But considering we're talking about an industry filled with people who are "more spiritual than religious", there's always the possibility.

Considering the LOTR references in both trailers so far, I assume that the figure is a visual allusion to Sauron.

In fact, that leads in to one of my few concerns about the movie. These trailers (which lack context, I acknowledge) almost seem to suggest that LOTR was born in the foxholes of World War I trench battles. Or perhaps even before that time, going back to Tolkien's early courtship of his wife. But (without double-checking the timeline), my recollection is that Tolkien didn't really set pen to paper on LOTR until around 1938 or so. And then only as a request by his publisher for a sequel to The Hobbit. And even then, only after they politely declined to publish The Silmarillion.

Long after World War I, in other words.

One pitfall I'm hoping this film will avoid is the predictable formula of showing events from the subject's life just so they can say 'ah, that's where he got the idea for such-and-such-a-thing'. If they adopt that approach, as several previous literary biopics have, then the film will ultimately be less about Tolkien himself than about The Lord of the Rings. And that will confirm that the studio's interest lies in exploiting the popularity of the brand rather than exploring the life of the man who created it. But again, there's no reason to assume that's the case right now. So far, the film looks promising.

Either way, the most famous Tolkien villain is probably Sauron so I'd wager that's what the dark figure is generally suggesting.

It does rather evoke Tolkien's watercolour painting of Sauron.

I suppose it could also be a generic dragon or Balrog.

[Silver Nemesis]