JRR Tolkien Discussion

[thecolorsblend]

http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/lord-of-the-rings-amazon-1202606519

"Talks" are happening. So let's not make this into more than it is. But if this is happening... I dunno. I mean, I'm going through a major time Tolkien fixation at the moment. Been reading his stuff, watched some of the movies, even tracked down a couple of fan films.

My concern, though, is that Hollywood (of which Amazon is technically a part at this point) always makes sure to insert certain ideas or concepts into their movies and shows, especially lately. The LOTR movies were lucky enough to escape that because they were made before that obnoxious stuff became all but official policy. But any new Tolkien project is likely to include at least two or three of the things that make modern Hollywood suck.

So I'm hopeful... but also a little fearful.

[Silver Nemesis]

I'm a huge fan of Tolkien's books, but less so the movies. I thought Peter Jackson did a great job adapting The Lord of the Rings trilogy, and especially The Fellowship of the Ring. But what he and Warner Bros did to The Hobbit was nothing short of atrocious. As I understand it, Christopher Tolkien despises Jackson and Hollywood in general. He's sworn to never allow any more of his father's writings to be adapted if it's within his power to stop it. Unfortunately the film rights to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings were sold back when J. R. R. Tolkien was still alive. They've been floating around Hollywood ever since and are presently in the possession of Warner Bros. And since WB can't get access to Tolkien's other books, they're most likely going to milk The Lord of the Rings for as long as possible.

I share your concerns about them modernizing it, colors. The first thing they'll do will be to add lots of extra female characters to the battle scenes. Contrary to popular myth, there are actually plenty of female heroes within Tolkien's legendarium. But with the exception of Éowyn in The Return of the King, they don't generally fight in the battles. Warner Bros will probably change that, as they did in The Hobbit movies. They'll also add racial diversity where most inappropriate. The races in Tolkien's writings usually display physical characteristics that reflect their genetic lineage. There should not be racial diversity within a single group unless it's expressly stated in the text (e.g. the descendants of Beren and Lúthien being part human and part elf). Warner Bros will probably add romance and sex scenes to make it like Game of Thrones, they'll overemphasise the action element to distract from Tolkien's moral themes, and they'll turn the Easterlings into good guys to avoid offending immigrants. After what they did to The Hobbit, I'm afraid I don't trust Warner Bros or any other Hollywood studio to get this right.

It's a shame filmmakers can't be trusted with these books, because Tolkien's writings on the First Age – which was far more epic than the Third Age depicted in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings – would offer enough material for at least five or six films. And you wouldn't need to resort to the absurd level of padding featured in The Hobbit trilogy.

The first film could be called simply The Silmarillion and would be an adaptation of the Ainulindalë, Valaquenta and the first 18 chapters of the Quenta Silmarillion. This one would lay the groundwork for the other films by introducing the various races and establishing important locations such as Valinor, Angband, Doriath, Gondolin, etc. Dramatically, I'd narrow the focus of the first half of the film to concentrate on the conflict between Manwë and Melkor and the latter's descent and transformation into the Dark Lord Morgoth. For the second half of the film, I'd focus on the plight of the House of Finwë and the relationship between the brothers Fëanor and Fingolfin. The film would begin with Eru Ilúvatar composing the Music of the Ainur, and it would end with Fingolfin's duel against Morgoth.

The second film would be Beren and Lúthien (my favourite story from the First Age), which would be adapted from the 19th chapter of The Silmarillion and the recently published book The Tale of Beren and Lúthien. This would be the most romantic entry in the series and probably the most fun overall.

The third film would be The Children of Húrin and would be a straight up adaptation of the excellent novel published in 2007. This would probably be the easiest one to adapt for the screen, but it would also be the darkest and most violent and would likely warrant an R-rating if done properly.

The fourth film would be The Fall of Gondolin and would primarily be adapted from the short story 'Of Tuor and his Coming to Gondolin' from Unfinished Tales, as well as the 23rd chapter of The Silmarillion.

The fifth film would be The War of Wrath, based on the 24th chapter of The Silmarillion and depicting the end of the First Age: Eärendil's journey to Valinor, the return of the Valar, the destruction of Beleriand, the death of Ancalagon and the fall of Morgoth.

I suppose if you really wanted to, you could make a sixth film based on The Second Age. This one would be adapted from the four Second Age short stories featured in Unfinished Tales, as well as the Akallabêth and Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age sections from The Silmarillion. It would depict Sauron's rise to become the second Dark Lord and everything preceding the War of the Last Alliance. That would take audiences right up to The Hobbit. Perhaps then we could get a proper faithful adaptation of The Hobbit (as a standalone film, not a trilogy).

But none of this will happen. Which is a shame, as Tolkien's writings could potentially form the basis of the greatest fantasy film series of all time. But those films would have to be adapted and directed by true fans who'd actually read and appreciated his work, not greedy Hollywood accountants looking for the next Star Wars-like IP they can turn into a shared universe. It's sad that so many people think of The Lord of the Rings as a movie franchise created by Peter Jackson. Still, perhaps the TV show will turn out ok. I've always thought the old BBC television adaptations of C. S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia were superior to the Walden Media films. Then again, those TV adaptations were produced back in the late eighties and early nineties. Nowadays they'd probably screw that up too.

[thecolorsblend]

I'm a huge fan of Tolkien's books

I'm not. And the reason for that is because always before I was a plot guy. What happens next in the story? If that's the baggage someone brings, Tolkien's work is a crashing bore. And it was for me for a long time.

But I eventually grocked the fact that Tolkien wrote stories, yes, but more broadly he was world-building and developing a history. A fictional history, sure, but still a history. So the reader should come in expecting to savor the rich detail and nuance and backstory rather than behaving like a sugar-high kindergartener and demanding the story move forward already. Because it totally misses the point of Professor Tolkien's work.

That realization has unlocked Tolkien's material for me. I'm working my way through the LOTR books now and, man, talk about a feast!

I share your concerns about them modernizing it, colors. The first thing they'll do will be to add lots of extra female characters to the battle scenes.

They'll also add racial diversity where most inappropriate.

I'm afraid I don't trust Warner Bros or any other Hollywood studio to get this right.

Okay, so you hit upon the stuff I was trying to politely talk around. But yes, those agendas are basically what I'm concerned about. It's slightly annoying when other adapted works get that kind of treatment, though I can deal with it. But it would really be a travesty for Tolkien's work.

And this is where I think the Tolkien estate might, just might, come to the rescue for us. They know the professor's work even better than we do. And obviously they've got much stricter ethics. If they're somehow legally required to be involved in this process, there's a non-zero chance they'll lay down the law for the showrunners.

Now, if it comes to that... let's get a little LARPy with our speculation.

To me, there's no point in ever adapting LOTR for the big screen ever again. Jackson nailed it and it's unlikely to improve upon what he did. But we all have to acknowledge that Jackson took a few liberties with the material here and there. So if I'm the showrunner of a hypothetical a LOTR show, my agenda would be to stick to the text like superglue.

Throw in Tom Bombadil, throw in Goldberry, mine every last comma of the appendices and all that fun stuff. Find age appropriate versions of Frodo, Aragorn and all the rest. I know I can't compete with the mega-budget Jackson had at his disposal. But I can sure as hell strive to be faithful to every single letter on the page.

I think this approach would actually be very suitable for an Amazon show. You can do some measure of justice to big flashy stuff like Rivendell or the balrog or something because expensive sequences like those are relatively few and rather far between. It would cost a lot per effects shot but aggregated over, say, 10 or 12 episodes, it wouldn't break the bank.

It's a shame filmmakers can't be trusted with these books, because Tolkien's writings on the First Age – which was far more epic than the Third Age depicted in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings – would offer enough material for at least five or six films. And you wouldn't need to resort to the absurd level of padding featured in The Hobbit trilogy.

I always thought The Silmarillion would readily lend itself to adaptation. Parts of it aren't fully developed and are more like outlines of events rather than conventional narratives. As such, an adaptation of The Silmarillion stories would have a ton of leeway in creating/developing characters, pacing the story, devising subplots, etc.

Best of all, they're separate from the ring, Rohan, Gondor and all the familiar stuff so there's no pressure to connect to that stuff. There's a ton of potential in Silmarillion adaptations and you hit upon several of them. Heck, the Gondolin stuff could just as easily be a trilogy or a season (or two) of a show all by itself.

But yeah, Beren and Luthien is probably the most marketable to the wide audiences who enjoyed LOTR.

[thecolorsblend]

I'm coming back to this.

What has really come to fascinate me is how intricate, nuanced and developed the Legendarium is. Lots of people have developed fictional worlds. But what sets the Legendarium apart is (A) the incredible degree of detail and history and (B) that Tolkien never published the great majority of what he wrote. Apart from The Hobbit and LOTR, what we have are scribblings and stuff he dashed off in his spare time.

I can only imagine what he might have created if he'd worked on his myth full-time rather than the odd weekend. Arguably what we have now is better than a fully-conceptualized canon would offer. Tolkien said he wanted his creation to inspire songs, poems, other writings perhaps and other things. And that would be less likely if there was a defined A, B and C for the Legendarium.

But at the same time, more Tolkien work that's been completed and perfected is a hard thing to say no to.

[The Dark Knight]

Are you Tolkien to me?

I'd be all over a LOTR show on TV if they devoted a large chunk of episodes to it. Something that explored the nuances of the world in depth. From what I've read from your posts, colors, that's what you're interested in as well. The atmosphere of the place and the subtle goings on. Not just primarily focused on getting from A to B. I think the films did a admirable job of realizing Middle Earth with the music and set design. But they still had a time limit...even when they released the extended editions. I read the Tolkien books back in 2003 or whenever it was. They're really deep reads.

Believe it or not, I was a huge LOTR fan. Those films were everything to me. I'd played the video games and bought nearly all of the movie books. As the years passed from their original release, I suppose they just became films like anything else. The Hobbit movie came out, and I somewhat liked it. But the feeling just wasn't the same for me - same goes for the other two Hobbit films. I did find those movies too long, and the concepts they introduced were foreign to the book. So there is a trade-off they would need to strike in a television series.

Exploring a world in depth is fun, but it can't be meandering. There still has to be a sense of purpose to sustain our interest. I think that would be the goal of a TV show. But it's possible, of course. Some people may think it's madness (me too, a little bit) but an Amazon show - if done properly, could be technically better than Peter Jackson's original trilogy, even if they can't replicate that vibe. Either way, I'm all for it.

[Silver Nemesis]

Gene Roddenberry and George Lucas both receive credit for creating expansive fictional universes, but in reality they were merely the starting point for those mythologies. Many other people contributed significantly to their success. That's not to say the original creators don't deserve a lot of credit. Just that they don't deserve all of it. Roddenberry's narrow and sterile vision of Star Trek is best represented by Star Trek: The Motion Picture and the first two seasons of The Next Generation, not Wrath of Khan or TNG seasons 3-7. Give Lucas complete creative and financial control over a Star Wars movie and you get Attack of the Clones, not The Empire Strikes Back. But with Tolkien, the entire mythology emerged from his imagination and his alone. He began working on his legendarium back in 1916 and continued developing it until his death in 1973. I'm not sure I can think of another work of one individual's imagination that's so incredibly detailed and well realised.

When George Lucas threw out references to the Clone Wars and the spice mines of Kessel back in 1977, he had no idea what those things were. They just sounded cool. When Tolkien referenced the tombs of fallen heroes, or battles of bygone eras, or songs written by ancient bards, he was referencing stories he'd already written. They just hadn't been published yet. When you hear alien tongues spoken in most sci-fi and fantasy stories, they're usually just gibberish. But Tolkien, being an expert philologist, created several complete languages in their entirety. Similarly all the names of characters and places in his tales have meaning, whereas names like 'Spock' and 'Jabba' have none. Tolkien mapped out every inch of the fictional landscapes of Arda. He created detailed family trees showing the history of each bloodline. He wrote detailed descriptions of the diets adhered to by each race, of the materials their weapons and clothes were made from, of the type of pipe weed they smoked. Did he need to go into such an insane level of detail? Perhaps not. But the whole thing is so mindbogglingly thorough, one can't help but marvel that it all sprang from one man's imagination.

I first read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings novels when I was a teenager. I also read some of Tolkien's critical writings on texts such as Sir Gawain and the Green Knight when I was undertaking a medieval literature module at university. But it's only in more recent years that I've developed a fascination with his First Age stories. Originally the First Age was the only Age. That was the entirety of his mythology, as conceived in 1916. Later, when he came up with the idea for The Hobbit, he developed the notion of the Second and Third Ages. But the First Age was where it all started.

The only two complete books set during that era are The Silmarillion and The Children of Húrin, and the former isn't actually a novel but rather a synoptic outline of the First Age (plus brief outlines of the Second and Third Ages). The Children of Húrin is the only complete novel akin to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings trilogy. But there are plenty of other incomplete poetic and prose works set during the First Age, most of which have been presented in books such as the 12-volume History of Middle-earth, The Book of Lost Tales and The Tale of Beren and Lúthien. Altogether, there's a tremendous amount of writing out there for anyone interested in escaping into that fictional word and exploring its many corners. There are six complete books, plus numerous poems and collections of incomplete tales. And I wouldn't be surprised if more unpublished works are one day discovered amongst Tolkien's old manuscripts.

I like the fact Tolkien's estate is so protective of his legacy; I wouldn't want anyone else adding to his mythology. Even so, there's endless potential for other artists to be inspired by his writing. I enjoy looking at artwork based on his tales. Especially the 'official' art of John Howe, Alan Lee and Ted Nasmith. While we may never get a live action portrayal of the First Age, there are at least some beautiful paintings depicting key moments from that period. Here are some of my favourites.

Morgoth and Ungoliant at the Two Trees.

Morgoth conjuring his Balrogs to help him fight Ungoliant.

The Kinslaying at Alqualondë.

Húrin watching his children's doom play out from the stone chair.

Túrin Turambar mortally wounding Glaurung.

Tuor speaking with Ulmo.

Glorfindel versus the Balrog.

Music is another medium that continues to be influenced by Tolkien's writing. One of the things I loved about The Lord of the Rings film score was the way they incorporated Tolkien's languages into the vocals. Enya's 'May It Be' includes elements of Quenya during the chorus.

And 'Aníron' is sung entirely in Sindarin. I find the Elvish languages beautiful to listen to.

[thecolorsblend]

Gene Roddenberry and George Lucas both receive credit for creating expansive fictional universes, but in reality they were merely the starting point for those mythologies. Many other people contributed significantly to their success. That's not to say the original creators don't deserve a lot of credit. Just that they don't deserve all of it. Roddenberry's narrow and sterile vision of Star Trek is best represented by Star Trek: The Motion Picture and the first two seasons of The Next Generation, not Wrath of Khan or TNG seasons 3-7. Give Lucas complete creative and financial control over a Star Wars movie and you get Attack of the Clones, not The Empire Strikes Back. But with Tolkien, the entire mythology emerged from his imagination and his alone. He began working on his legendarium back in 1916 and continued developing it until his death in 1973. I'm not sure I can think of another work of one individual's imagination that's so incredibly detailed and well realised.

Good points, all. I would add that Lucas being MIA has also resulted in the Christmas special. But your point stands.

Did he need to go into such an insane level of detail? Perhaps not. But the whole thing is so mindbogglingly thorough, one can't help but marvel that it all sprang from one man's imagination.

This.

There's a level of craftsmanship built into the legendarium that all contributes to the feeling of Arda being, in a sense, "real". There's a verisimilitude there which is utterly absent from the myriad books, movies, shows, etc, which Tolkien inspired.

I like the fact Tolkien's estate is so protective of his legacy;

It's taken some time to reach that same conclusion. But, for the reasons I mentioned above, I agree. But even if Hollywood could be trusted with the material in a general way, some things are better left to the imagination. Or maybe some things shouldn't be licensed, transformed into movies and sold in Happy Meals. Maybe it's better that I read LOTR by a warm fire and drink coffee (or egg nog at this time of year) and just enjoy the sheer scope of the thing rather than quibbling about how this movie or that animated series adapted a certain plot or character.

There's a purity to Tolkien's work which wouldn't exist if Disney bought the rights to everything and turned the legendarium into something gaudy. I can only imagine the offers that Christopher Tolkien has gotten over the years. Probably blank checks. And I must say that I'd have probably given in. Sure, I might've demanded creative oversight, right-of-refusal, approval of this or that, etc. But in the end, I'm 99% sure I would've cut a deal. And probably for a fraction of what Christopher has surely been repeatedly offered.

I enjoy looking at artwork based on his tales. Especially the 'official' art of John Howe, Alan Lee and Ted Nasmith. While we may never get a live action portrayal of the First Age, there are at least some beautiful paintings depicting key moments from that period.

I agree but I try to avoid Lee and Howe. It's not that I have anything against their work. But it's so common as to be ubiquitous. I rather prefer seeing how other artists interpret the material. The Hildebrandt brothers, for example, but there are others. To me, it's about looking at the same material with a different set of eyes and artistic sensibilities.

The amount of consensus between artists working in isolation from each other is occasionally stupefying though.

Húrin watching his children's doom play out from the stone chair.

My basic plan right now is to work my way through the legendarium. I'm a rookie so everything is new for me. I decided to start with LOTR and then see what strikes my fancy. Maybe some Lost Tales? Hard to say.

What I know for certain, though, is that I'm saving The Children of Húrin for last because I really dig the premise.

Well. Maybe I'll save The Silmarillion for last. But you get the idea.

[Silver Nemesis]

There's a level of craftsmanship built into the legendarium that all contributes to the feeling of Arda being, in a sense, "real". There's a verisimilitude there which is utterly absent from the myriad books, movies, shows, etc, which Tolkien inspired.

On the topic of verisimilitude, I think there's a good deal of emotional and psychological realism in Tolkien's fiction. Every genre writer on the planet has written about war at some point, but how many actually experienced it firsthand? Tolkien did. He was a lieutenant in the British Army and fought at the Battle of the Somme, one of the bloodiest and most horrific battles in human history. When he wrote about trauma and the horrors of war, he knew whereof he spoke. His work may be high fantasy, but there's an authenticity in his treatment of emotion and psychology. He was able to frame even the most fantastical scenarios within a believable human context. That's something many less talented genre writers fail to accomplish.

There's a purity to Tolkien's work which wouldn't exist if Disney bought the rights to everything and turned the legendarium into something gaudy. I can only imagine the offers that Christopher Tolkien has gotten over the years. Probably blank checks. And I must say that I'd have probably given in. Sure, I might've demanded creative oversight, right-of-refusal, approval of this or that, etc. But in the end, I'm 99% sure I would've cut a deal. And probably for a fraction of what Christopher has surely been repeatedly offered.

Every studio on the planet would love to get their mitts on The Silmarillion. Thank God Disney doesn't have the rights to Tolkien's work. Imagine the spinoffs they'd be churning out if they did.

Bombadil: A Tolkien Story.

Ugh.

What I know for certain, though, is that I'm saving The Children of Húrin for last because I really dig the premise.

Well. Maybe I'll save The Silmarillion for last. But you get the idea.

I'd actually recommend reading The Silmarillion before The Children of Húrin. The Silmarillion is a lot more epic, though The Children of Húrin is arguably more readable on account of it being a conventional novel. But The Children of Húrin doesn't have the expository preamble that The Lord of the Rings has. It assumes the reader is already familiar with the time and setting and throws them in at the deep end. The upside of this is that the story hits the ground running and never lets up. The downside is that people who aren't familiar with The Silmarillion usually report being confused by all the strange character and place names. So I'd say definitely read The Silmarillion first. Either that or read the parts of The Silmarillion leading up to Chapter 21: 'Of Túrin Turambar', then read The Children of Húrin before going back and reading the rest of The Silmarillion.

[thecolorsblend]

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2017/11/13/104387-its-official-amazon-commits-to-lord-of-the-rings-tv-series

So this is a thing that's really happening. The actual announcement is pretty vague. "Lord Of The Rings prequel" could mean literally anything. Mining the appendices for story ideas? Maybe. Redoing The Hobbit? Possibly. Adapting The Silmarillion? Potentially. Creating new stories based on Tolkien's writings? I daresay this is the most likely... but not necessarily a given.

Anybody fearing a trashy GOT ripoff... well, I don't have a crystal ball but I don't think we're out of the woods. Not even close.

But what the hay? What's one more show to put on my ignore list, right?

On the topic of verisimilitude, I think there's a good deal of emotional and psychological realism in Tolkien's fiction. Every genre writer on the planet has written about war at some point, but how many actually experienced it firsthand? Tolkien did. He was a lieutenant in the British Army and fought at the Battle of the Somme, one of the bloodiest and most horrific battles in human history. When he wrote about trauma and the horrors of war, he knew whereof he spoke. His work may be high fantasy, but there's an authenticity in his treatment of emotion and psychology. He was able to frame even the most fantastical scenarios within a believable human context. That's something many less talented genre writers fail to accomplish.

It's all the more impressive to me when I realize that Tolkien didn't really consider himself to be an author in the conventional sense. He understood storytelling, obviously, but language was his vocation moreso than narrative storytelling. People who are smarter than me believe writing The Lord Of The Rings was therapeutic for him for the very reasons you mention. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Frodo is Tolkien's alter-ego in the story. But what I know of Tolkien's biography certainly suggests he had a lot of sympathy for Frodo.

Every studio on the planet would love to get their mitts on The Silmarillion. Thank God Disney doesn't have the rights to Tolkien's work. Imagine the spinoffs they'd be churning out if they did.

Bombadil: A Tolkien Story.

I'm already afraid of the politicking the Amazon show might have. I look at the agendas (obvious and not so obvious) inherent in virtually every other show and movie going right now and it seems baffling to think that somehow Tolkien's work might somehow escape it. Apparently the estate was involved at least with the negotiations for this thing. If that's so, they might have set down proper boundaries for the show to work within. I can only hope.

I'd actually recommend reading The Silmarillion before The Children of Húrin. The Silmarillion is a lot more epic, though The Children of Húrin is arguably more readable on account of it being a conventional novel. But The Children of Húrin doesn't have the expository preamble that The Lord of the Rings has. It assumes the reader is already familiar with the time and setting and throws them in at the deep end. The upside of this is that the story hits the ground running and never lets up. The downside is that people who aren't familiar with The Silmarillion usually report being confused by all the strange character and place names. So I'd say definitely read The Silmarillion first. Either that or read the parts of The Silmarillion leading up to Chapter 21: 'Of Túrin Turambar', then read The Children of Húrin before going back and reading the rest of The Silmarillion.

Fair enough. I've heard that The Silmarillion is so dry that it could serve as kindling. I don't see that as much of an obstacle, frankly. I've read some serious drek in my time so I don't see how The Silmarillion could possibly be worse.

[The Dark Knight]

I'm already afraid of the politicking the Amazon show might have. I look at the agendas (obvious and not so obvious) inherent in virtually every other show and movie going right now and it seems baffling to think that somehow Tolkien's work might somehow escape it. Apparently the estate was involved at least with the negotiations for this thing. If that's so, they might have set down proper boundaries for the show to work within. I can only hope.

As anti-Orc sentiment rises, they can convene a special council to crack down on anti-Orc hate speech on town posters and books.