Batman-Online.com

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.

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.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat,  4 Nov  2017, 19:04I'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!

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat,  4 Nov  2017, 19:04I 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.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat,  4 Nov  2017, 19:04They'll also add racial diversity where most inappropriate.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat,  4 Nov  2017, 19:04I'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.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat,  4 Nov  2017, 19:04It'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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed,  8 Nov  2017, 00:02Gene 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.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed,  8 Nov  2017, 00:02Did 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.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed,  8 Nov  2017, 00:02I 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.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed,  8 Nov  2017, 00:02I 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.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed,  8 Nov  2017, 00:02Húrin watching his children's doom play out from the stone chair.

(https://i.imgur.com/TQuEbGf.jpg)

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.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed,  8 Nov  2017, 21:48There'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.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed,  8 Nov  2017, 21:48There'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.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed,  8 Nov  2017, 21:48What 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.

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?

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 10 Nov  2017, 23:23On 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.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 10 Nov  2017, 23:23Every 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.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 10 Nov  2017, 23:23I'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.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 13 Nov  2017, 23:59
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.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 13 Nov  2017, 23:59So 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?

Now I'm even more confused about what this show's meant to be. But ultimately this is a literary property. Tolkien's writings are the canon. Anything else is apocrypha. If it's good apocrypha, like The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, then fans will embrace it. But if it's bad, we'll consign it to the reject bin along with Leonard Nimoy's 'The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins'.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 13 Nov  2017, 23:59It'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.

Tolkien always said he preferred applicability over straight up allegory, but it is hard not to see autobiographical elements in some of his characters. Frodo is certainly one of them. Another is Beren. Beren's wearied and battle worn state when he arrives in Doriath is often seen as representing Tolkien's own shell-shocked condition when he returned from the Western Front. Beren's spirits are rejuvenated when he sees Lúthien dancing in the woods, and this was apparently inspired by a real incident where Tolkien's wife Edith had danced while the two of them were out walking one day. The sight of her dancing had a rejuvenating effect on Tolkien's spirits, much like the sight of Lúthien has on Beren.


The suffering Lúthien endures after relinquishing her Elvish immortality to marry Beren is seen by many as representing the social abuse Edith suffered when she converted to Catholicism to marry Tolkien. But the biggest clue to the Beren and Lúthien story reflecting aspects of Tolkien's marriage can be found on Edith Tolkien's headstone.


A film is currently in production about the relationship between Tolkien and his wife, starring Nicholas Hoult and Lily Collins. A local newspaper reported Collins had been filming scenes not far from where I live. The cynic in me wonders if this is just a way of getting around the Tolkien estate's reluctance to allow more films to be made based on his work. Hopefully it will be an earnest and accurate portrayal of the real man, and not simply a cheap way of making an unlicensed Beren and Lúthien film to exploit his fans. But as with the new Amazon series, we'll just have to wait and see.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 13 Nov  2017, 23:59Fair 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 first time I tried reading The Silmarillion was back when I was a teenager, and I gave up after about fifty pages. It was only many years later that I went back and tried again. By that point I was curious to read the book, not as a prequel to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, but as a standalone work of literature. And I loved it. But it certainly is very dry. Tolkien's First Age stories are generally much darker and less humorous than The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings, and the prose in The Silmarillion has a very elevated, academic tone than can be intimidating at first. There are also an insane number of strange names the reader is expected to remember, and if you're like me you'll find yourself repeatedly flicking to the index at the back of the book to jog your memory. But if you're in the right mindset to enjoy it, it's a beautiful and epic work of the imagination.

Just don't expect it to be too similar to The Hobbit or The Lord Rings. That's the mistake I made the first time I tried reading it. The Silmarillion needs to be read as a standalone work of fantasy literature. It's a doorway to another section of the Tolkien mythology. And once you've passed through that doorway, you can go on and read the more detailed accounts of the First Age related in The Children of Húrin and Unfinished Tales.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 14 Nov  2017, 03:59As anti-Orc sentiment rises, they can convene a special council to crack down on anti-Orc hate speech on town posters and books.

Amazon should make a sitcom about a group of 21st century SJWs who are transported to Middle-earth. They demand everyone refer to Hobbits as 'vertically challenged', whine about Orcphobia and lobby to end violence against Wargs.

Actually we shouldn't joke about this stuff. It might give them ideas.

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2017/11/14/104393-contents-of-amazons-lord-of-the-rings-series-not-so-mysterious-after-all

So you've got TORn suggesting that the Amazon show could be adaptations of Appendix A and Appendix B. I can't fault their logic. Tolkien sold the rights to "Lord Of The Rings the book", not "Lord Of The Rings the story". Anything between the front cover and back cover is fair game for adaptation. As such, it really says something about New Line Cinema, WB, etc, that this never happened sooner. The LOTR trilogy grossed over a billion worldwide so it's not like they weren't aware of the demand.

Is it The Silmarillion? No. And yet, with Christopher Tolkien's retirement, who knows what the future may bring?

Also, again, kudos to Christopher for keeping his ethics straight for all these decades. Again I suggest that he's been offered blank checks by everybody and his brother for the film rights to other Tolkien writings. The fact that he declined all of them really says a lot about the respect he has for his father's legacy.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 14 Nov  2017, 23:24Now I'm even more confused about what this show's meant to be. But ultimately this is a literary property. Tolkien's writings are the canon. Anything else is apocrypha. If it's good apocrypha, like The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, then fans will embrace it. But if it's bad, we'll consign it to the reject bin along with Leonard Nimoy's 'The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGF5ROpjRAU

I don't think most fans will struggle too much over it, tbh. The Hobbit trilogy is regarded as, ahem, something less than ideal. As you say, if something isn't up to snuff, people will just ignore it.

I must be honest. In spite of my open skepticism, the suggestion that this show could be based on the appendices has me a bit excited. It relates directly to LOTR but isn't necessarily derivative of it. Goings on with Gandalf and the ring of fire, the Numenorian kings, hell maybe even a more fleshed out story of the Last Alliance's first war with Sauron, so much is on the table here and most of it has a lot of potential.

I would imagine that most of the LOTR main cast isn't terribly busy. They could probably squeeze in the show if they wanted to.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 14 Nov  2017, 23:24Tolkien always said he preferred applicability over straight up allegory

True. And this is one of those issues about his public statements that people misconstrue. I view LOTR in particular through a specific metaphorical interpretation, the details of which I'll skip.

Mentioning my interpretative model to others is invariably dismissed by the wannabe literati on the grounds that Tolkien had an open distaste for allegory. But what that dismissive reaction misses is that allegory is typically what the author intends. A reader is welcome to form his own interpretation and metaphor figures into that. The applicability of a story to issues the reader is familiar with is something utterly outside the author's control, which is a good thing in most cases.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 14 Nov  2017, 23:24A film is currently in production about the relationship between Tolkien and his wife, starring Nicholas Hoult and Lily Collins. A local newspaper reported Collins had been filming scenes not far from where I live. The cynic in me wonders if this is just a way of getting around the Tolkien estate's reluctance to allow more films to be made based on his work. Hopefully it will be an earnest and accurate portrayal of the real man, and not simply a cheap way of making an unlicensed Beren and Lúthien film to exploit his fans. But as with the new Amazon series, we'll just have to wait and see.

The bio-movie thing, yeah. Forgot about that. Maybe it'll turn out well. But... eh.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 14 Nov  2017, 23:24But if you're in the right mindset to enjoy it, it's a beautiful and epic work of the imagination.

I read the first few pages of it in the iTunes preview on my phone. I rather enjoyed what I read. I'm sure the entire book isn't written so eloquently but the preview was perfectly enjoyable. I'm looking forward to it.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 16 Nov  2017, 03:53I must be honest. In spite of my open skepticism, the suggestion that this show could be based on the appendices has me a bit excited. It relates directly to LOTR but isn't necessarily derivative of it. Goings on with Gandalf and the ring of fire, the Numenorian kings, hell maybe even a more fleshed out story of the Last Alliance's first war with Sauron, so much is on the table here and most of it has a lot of potential.

I would imagine that most of the LOTR main cast isn't terribly busy. They could probably squeeze in the show if they wanted to.

I could maybe see this working as an anthology series, provided it stays rooted in Tolkien's writing. There are plenty of interesting stories mentioned in The Lord of the Rings appendices that occur earlier in the Third Age: Isildur's death, the Witch-king of Angmar's war against the Dúnedain, the dwarves of Moria discovering the Balrog, Smaug's destruction of Dale, the forging of the One Ring, etc. These and other tales could potentially be expanded into hour-long episodes. But after what happened with The Hobbit film trilogy, I'm very apprehensive about the idea of other writers building on Tolkien's work. If the show's writers had access to Unfinished Tales of Númenor and Middle-earth then they'd have a lot more material to go on. But if they're just using the appendices from The Lord of the Rings, they'll have to construct a lot of details from scratch. But it could work. I'm trying to keep an open mind.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 16 Nov  2017, 03:53Also, again, kudos to Christopher for keeping his ethics straight for all these decades. Again I suggest that he's been offered blank checks by everybody and his brother for the film rights to other Tolkien writings. The fact that he declined all of them really says a lot about the respect he has for his father's legacy.

Absolutely. I wish every beloved IP had a guardian with as much integrity as Christopher Tolkien. Nobody can blame him for being protective of the rights to his father's work. J. R. R. Tolkien created one of the finest works of genre fiction ever published in the English language – in my opinion, one of the finest works of 20th century literature – and Warner Bros went and turned it into a casino slot machine. Christopher has every right to be pissed.

Now that he's retired as estate director, I'm fearful for his father's legacy. One of my concerns is that they might allow other authors to add to the legendarium, similar to what happened with Frank Herbert's Dune series. And I just know eventually some greedy lawyer or literary agent will whore out the rights for Tolkien's entire bibliography, with little to no regard for quality control. But again, the original books will always be the true canon. The purity of those stories can never be tainted. I like to think that from now on the fans will be the guardians of Tolkien's legacy. We'll continue reading and appreciating his books, and we'll be there to throw down the glove to anyone who tries misrepresenting or corrupting their content.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 16 Nov  2017, 03:53Mentioning my interpretative model to others is invariably dismissed by the wannabe literati on the grounds that Tolkien had an open distaste for allegory. But what that dismissive reaction misses is that allegory is typically what the author intends. A reader is welcome to form his own interpretation and metaphor figures into that. The applicability of a story to issues the reader is familiar with is something utterly outside the author's control, which is a good thing in most cases.

That's a sound distinction to make. I've always held that authorial intent is not the only valid interpretation of a text. Obviously if you come up with a reading that runs contrary to what the author intended, or if you attempt to attribute a questionable motive to the author, then that's a different matter. But if you can present a sustainable interpretation supported by the text, then your reading is as valid as any other. In Tolkien's case, he clearly didn't want to dictate interpretation so much as invite it. But as with any author, if you look at their life story, their political, social and religious beliefs, you can usually identify a value system inherent in their writing. With that in mind, your own theory about The Lord of the Rings' subtext could well be what Tolkien intended. And even if it isn't, it may still be a valid interpretation.

Has anyone here seen the animated films based on Tolkien's work? I saw the Rankin-Bass film of The Hobbit (1977) a few years back. But I've never seen Ralph Bakshi's adaptation of The Lord of the Rings (1978) or the 1980 film of The Return of the King. Are they worth seeing?

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 18 Nov  2017, 22:50I could maybe see this working as an anthology series, provided it stays rooted in Tolkien's writing. There are plenty of interesting stories mentioned in The Lord of the Rings appendices that occur earlier in the Third Age: Isildur's death, the Witch-king of Angmar's war against the Dúnedain, the dwarves of Moria discovering the Balrog, Smaug's destruction of Dale, the forging of the One Ring, etc. These and other tales could potentially be expanded into hour-long episodes. But after what happened with The Hobbit film trilogy, I'm very apprehensive about the idea of other writers building on Tolkien's work. If the show's writers had access to Unfinished Tales of Númenor and Middle-earth then they'd have a lot more material to go on. But if they're just using the appendices from The Lord of the Rings, they'll have to construct a lot of details from scratch. But it could work. I'm trying to keep an open mind.

What I want to believe is that Martinez (or whoever the new head honcho is) is just as apprehensive as we are. So he's using LOTR as a test-case. If they screw up LOTR, no more of anything else for a while.

But if they do okay with the appendices (or whatever direction this thing takes), maybe we can start considering some of those Beren & Luthien or Silmarillion offers.

I believe we're all right to be skeptical. But, as risks go, this is a safer bet than, say, selling the rights to everything all in one go.

Since we're on the subject, there is some overlap between material in The Silmarillion and other volumes. And therein may lie an opportunity. In theory, the rights to Beren & Luthien (the novel) would be separate from the rights to The Silmarillion. So perhaps the estate can sell those rights to separate companies. Who knows? Maybe the competition will be over which of them can be more faithful to the text.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 18 Nov  2017, 22:50Now that he's retired as estate director, I'm fearful for his father's legacy. One of my concerns is that they might allow other authors to add to the legendarium, similar to what happened with Frank Herbert's Dune series. And I just know eventually some greedy lawyer or literary agent will whore out the rights for Tolkien's entire bibliography, with little to no regard for quality control. But again, the original books will always be the true canon. The purity of those stories can never be tainted. I like to think that from now on the fans will be the guardians of Tolkien's legacy. We'll continue reading and appreciating his books, and we'll be there to throw down the glove to anyone who tries misrepresenting or corrupting their content.

Quite true. And I suppose it helps that Tolkien's is one of the more devoted fanbases going. Arguably they're the first organized fandom. Like, ever. They're the core audience of any Tolkien project. Yeah, the wide audience is much bigger but -- as with comic movies -- it isn't like movie studios WANT to upset their core audience. So that might be a decent firewall.

Looking back at it, I wonder if the comparisons to GOT are off-base. GOT was written to be trash and is, in fact, trash. There's really nothing there to "live up to", mostly, with a TV show. But that's not true of the legendarium.

But then I remember how everything Hollywood adapts get politicized somehow and... I just don't know.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 18 Nov  2017, 22:50Has anyone here seen the animated films based on Tolkien's work? I saw the Rankin-Bass film of The Hobbit (1977) a few years back. But I've never seen Ralph Bakshi's adaptation of The Lord of the Rings (1978) or the 1980 film of The Return of the King. Are they worth seeing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnIhJwhBeqY

All the animated features are on my list of future projects. I want to read the books which means having to buy the books and those things take time. But those animated movies have a rep ranging from "worth watching" to "totally awesome". I'm looking forward to seeing them... eventually.

So the LOTR Amazon show is quickly becoming a case study in fake news. A day or two ago, Ian McKellan announced that he'd be willing to play Gandalf in the show, to the delight of Tolkien fans everywhere.

Crap-tier, click-bait web pages have cleverly rephrased his comment from "I would play Gandalf on the show if asked" to "I will play Gandalf on the show (if asked)", which is a completely different sentiment. Well-meaning but stupid fans have interpreted that as confirmation that he's in the show now and this whole thing will probably end pretty badly for them, especially if Gandalf isn't even in the show or if he's played by someone else.

I'm cynical enough about the LOTR show as it is. I don't need the extra disappointment.

*sigh*

Can't people just read the books and content themselves with that?

What I find most infuriating is that for them only two Fantasy/S&S IPs seem to exist, Tolkien's LOTR and Martin's ASOIAF. Why don't they try their hands on something that has never been done, or never been done properly? Before 2011, most people didn't know or care who Eddard Stark was. In summer 2011, half the internet was screaming "they killed Ned". A good production made the audience care and brought success.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 17 Dec  2017, 17:34I'm cynical enough about the LOTR show as it is. I don't need the extra disappointment.

*sigh*

Can't people just read the books and content themselves with that?

^ This. I received a nice hardback edition of Beren and Lúthien for Christmas, and I'm getting a lot more pleasure out of reading it than I did from watching The Last Jedi.

We've discussed medium specificity numerous times on this site, and Tolkien's stories perfectly illustrate how some tales work better in one medium than they do in others. That's not to say there aren't some fine songs, paintings and films inspired by his writing. But at the end of the day, Tolkien's legendarium is a work of literature. And it's within a literary framework that his creations are best appreciated.

Quote from: Azrael on Sat, 23 Dec  2017, 14:44
What I find most infuriating is that for them only two Fantasy/S&S IPs seem to exist, Tolkien's LOTR and Martin's ASOIAF. Why don't they try their hands on something that has never been done, or never been done properly? Before 2011, most people didn't know or care who Eddard Stark was. In summer 2011, half the internet was screaming "they killed Ned". A good production made the audience care and brought success.

That's a good question. But I fear we may be ascribing too much credit to the agents and lawyers running these production companies if we assume their literary diets include anything more diverse or sophisticated than Fifty Shades of Grey. I'll bet a lot of the industry insiders pushing for this TV show have never even read any of Tolkien's books.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri,  5 Jan  2018, 17:06That's a good question. But I fear we may be ascribing too much credit to the agents and lawyers running these production companies if we assume their literary diets include anything more diverse or sophisticated than Fifty Shades of Grey. I'll bet a lot of the industry insiders pushing for this TV show have never even read any of Tolkien's books.

Is that really a negative though? A producer's role is, among other things, to identify properties for development. The Hobbit trilogy notwithstanding, the few Tolkien adaptations up to this point have mostly attracted uber-fans into key creative positions in the productions. And I'm even willing to overlook the Hobbit trilogy's many and varied weaknesses because of all the behind the scenes baloney that was going on.

I would expect movie executives to be a bit more hands-on. When word came out that Iger watched all the Star Wars movies, the then-current Star Wars shows, read dozens of comics and read a similar number of Star Wars novels as part of his research into the actual market value of the Star Wars brand, I was impressed. More impressed with that revelation, I'd say, than with Disney's Star Wars output heretofore. But it's logical since he's the guy signing off on these deals, he'd better know wtf he's talking about.

It's true that fan status doesn't automatically qualify someone to helm a franchise, but I think a deeper awareness/appreciation of the property should inform the business side of the process as well as the creative. At least in terms of establishing the correct format for the adaptation. For example, it's no good trying to turn a small scale IP (Ghostbusters) into an epic shared universe just because shared universes are in vogue. Anyone who is a genuine fan of the original IP – and not a facile poser fan for PR purposes (I'm looking at you, Paul Feig) – should understand the strengths and limitations of the given property.

My concern is that some corporate suit with zero imagination or creative talent will look at the success of Game of Thrones and wonder what other genre books might form the basis of a copycat production. This person – who has no broader awareness of the high fantasy literary genre – will then recall Jackson's Lord of the Rings films and decide Tolkien's books are suitable for the HBO treatment, despite never having actually read them. That's clearly what happened behind the scenes with The Hobbit movies: some producers at Warner Bros wanted to repeat the success of The Lord of the Rings films and decided to try and fit The Hobbit into the same mould. When what they should have been doing was trying to find the right tone and structure to suit the book, not shoehorn the book into an unsuitable three-picture format. I assume the reason for this mistake was the bigwigs at the studio not having a sufficiently nuanced understanding of the books to appreciate the differences between them. Just because one business model worked for The Lord of the Rings doesn't mean it will work for The Hobbit. And similarly, just because one business model worked for Martin doesn't mean it will work for Tolkien.

Of course we don't know for certain that they are planning to turn this into a Game of Thrones clone. I'm just being cynical and playing devil's advocate. Warner Bros and Amazon might well have a completely different strategy in mind. But I agree with Azrael that if studios are looking to repeat the success of Game of Thrones, they'd be better off taking a risk on a previously un-adapted literary series. Let's see some T H White, Gene Wolfe and Urusla Le Guin books get the screen treatment.

During his introduction to last year's Beren and Lúthien, Christopher Tolkien wrote: "In my ninety-third year this is (presumptively) my last book in the long series of editions of my father's writings, very largely previously unpublished." However it's now been announced that Christopher has edited at least one more book that will be published on the 30th August: The Fall of Gondolin.

QuoteEdited by Christopher Tolkien and illustrated by Alan Lee, The Fall of Gondolin will follow the same format as Beren and Lúthien published last year, separating out the story so that it stands alone while showing how the narrative evolved over the years. This is the first time the tale of the Fall of Gondolin will be published as a standalone edition, collecting all versions of the story together.

Responding to the news, Tolkien Society chair, Shaun Gunner, said:

'We never dared to dream that we would see this published. The Fall of Gondolin is, to many in the Tolkien community, the Holy Grail of Tolkien texts as one of Tolkien's three Great Tales alongside The Children of Húrin and Beren and Lúthien. This beautiful story captures the rise and fall of a great Elven kingdom, taking place millennia before the events of The Lord of the Rings. This book brings all the existing work together in one place to present the story in full.'

https://www.tolkiensociety.org/2018/04/the-fall-of-gondolin-to-be-published/


The Fall of Gondolin was one of the three primary narratives of the First Age that most occupied Tolkien's imagination, the other two being Beren and Lúthien and The Children of Húrin. It's fitting that each of these three stories will now have its own individual book, collectively forming a sort of trilogy of the First Age to accompany The Silmarillion.

I've read 'Of Tuor and his Coming to Gondolin' from Unfinished Tales, as well as the account of this story given in The Silmarillion. Presumably both of those texts will be incorporated into this new edition along with The Lay of the Fall of Gondolin and (hopefully) some previously unpublished materials. I'll definitely be pre-ordering this book and look forward to reading it in the summer.

I kind of figured The Fall Of Gondolin was coming. Honestly, I'm glad that Christopher Tolkien got the chance to do it. He's had a monumental task of getting his fathers scraps, notes and jottings into some kind of shape for publication. JRR Tolkien would always have been a legend but his son has enhanced his father's reputation in extraordinary ways.

Suffice it to say, this book will be joining my collection.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 18 Nov  2017, 22:50


Has anyone here seen the animated films based on Tolkien's work? I saw the Rankin-Bass film of The Hobbit (1977) a few years back. But I've never seen Ralph Bakshi's adaptation of The Lord of the Rings (1978) or the 1980 film of The Return of the King. Are they worth seeing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnIhJwhBeqY

I have seen all three and enjoy them.

Ralph Bakshi's film is the best of them in my opinion, even though he never got the chance to adapt the whole story. I found that Peter Jackson took a few cues from the film for his own Lord of the Rings movies which I also like.

Return of the King (1980) is not the best adaptation, but still worth seeing. The songs are the highlight of the film for me.

And I actually like the animated The Hobbit a bit better than the live-action trilogy.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri,  5 Jan  2018, 17:06

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 17 Dec  2017, 17:34I'm cynical enough about the LOTR show as it is. I don't need the extra disappointment.

*sigh*

Can't people just read the books and content themselves with that?

^ This. I received a nice hardback edition of Beren and Lúthien for Christmas, and I'm getting a lot more pleasure out of reading it than I did from watching The Last Jedi.

We've discussed medium specificity numerous times on this site, and Tolkien's stories perfectly illustrate how some tales work better in one medium than they do in others. That's not to say there aren't some fine songs, paintings and films inspired by his writing. But at the end of the day, Tolkien's legendarium is a work of literature. And it's within a literary framework that his creations are best appreciated.

I'm coming back to this because I remembered this post and it hit home.

At the risk of going off topic, Batman is a comic book character to me. Yeah stories about him can be found aplenty in other media: prose novels, old timey radio shows, live action TV shows, animated series, feature film, storybooks and all that. And some of those stories are amazing too, some of the best Batman stories ever.

But those things are happy coincidences, aren't they? Batman is FROM comics and OF comics. Himself, his supporting cast, his world, those things can only truly be realized in comics, if you ask me. He's a comic book character and no other medium can fully do justice to his myth.

I'm a Tolkien neophyte. I'm slowly making my way through LOTR the book. I can't get enough of this book. I want to devour it but instead I'm forcing myself to go slow and take my time with it.

Obviously I've seen the movie trilogy and have even come to really appreciate it. But reading the book brings this story, these characters, these themes and these ideas across in a way that no live action film or Amazon prequel show ever can. It's not that the Jackson trilogy is bad. Far from it!

But the purest medium for this story is without question Tolkien's original book. That becomes more and more obvious with each new page. I applaud Jackson for taking as relatively few liberties as he did with the story. But in the end, he can only adapt THE STORY. He can't afford to stop the plot to go into a digression about the vague history of pipeweed or what exactly "by Shire reckoning" means. Jackson doesn't have appendices he can rely upon to flesh out the story a bit better.

Tolkien can get away with that stuff though because he wasn't simply telling a story; he was creating a whole other world with a dense, rich history of its own.

Batman's home turf is, was and will always be comics. And the Legendarium's home turf will always be the novels. It's okay to leave these things where they are sometimes. Not everything needs to be turned into a Happy Meal or an action figure.

Excellent post, colors. I'm glad you're enjoying the novels. You now have an informed insight into the mythology that people who've only seen the films can never fully comprehend. Great literature transports the reader to another time and place. And in my opinion, The Lord of the Rings is great literature. When you read the books, your imagination engages directly with Tolkien's. There are no Hollywood producers or focus groups filtering that transfer of ideas. It's undiluted art, uncontaminated by political influence or commercially-driven interference. Watching the movies is like listening to someone else's effective but second-hand description of a magical place. Reading the books is like being transported there yourself.

Regarding the TV series, some more news has appeared online. Apparently the plan is to produce five seasons, with the first season focusing on Aragorn. The series as a whole is being touted as the most expensive ever made, with a rumoured budget of $500 million. That's bigger than the combined budgets of Jackson's movie trilogy. Jackson himself has denied any involvement:

Quote"I'm not involved at all in the 'Lord of the Rings' series," Jackson said during an interview with French outlet Allocine. "I understand how my name could come up, but there is nothing happening with me on this project."

He's also denied any involvement with the DCEU:

Quote"That's not true. I had no discussions about that," Jackson said. "I'm not a fan of comics, I've never read any, so I'm not particularly interested in adapting one for cinema. That's not true at all. I'm not involved in any DC film or 'Lord of The Rings' series but I'm ok with it, I have plenty other projects that keep me busy."

http://www.indiewire.com/2018/06/peter-jackson-lord-of-the-rings-television-series-not-involved-1201971715/

He's not interested in comics? Then why did he sign on to direct the second Tintin movie and claim to be a fan of Hergé's work?

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Tue,  5 Jun  2018, 05:39Ralph Bakshi's film is the best of them in my opinion, even though he never got the chance to adapt the whole story. I found that Peter Jackson took a few cues from the film for his own Lord of the Rings movies which I also like.

Return of the King (1980) is not the best adaptation, but still worth seeing. The songs are the highlight of the film for me.

I still haven't seen either of these. I must get around to watching them sometime this summer.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Tue,  5 Jun  2018, 05:39And I actually like the animated The Hobbit a bit better than the live-action trilogy.

I haven't seen the third of Jackson's Hobbit films. But based on the first two, I think I'd agree that the animated adaptation was better.

The news about Jackson's lack of involvement (for now) is a bit discouraging. I honestly don't blame him for The Hobbit trilogy's flaws. That doesn't mean the flaws don't exist though. But I do trust him with this material.

As to all this animated stuff, the animated Hobbit seems interesting. I'll check it out in the next few weeks.

Jackson must really love this universe though. He has devoted a large chunk of his life to it. The Hobbit films weren't my thing, but he has a lot of credits in the bank with the original trilogy. I think he did a fine job, especially in terms of atmosphere. Some books are very hard to adapt. Ian Fleming's YOLT is a good example. Not much actually happens, but there's a certain kind of atmosphere and inner dialogue that makes everything work, in the only way a book can. In that sense, books are a special experience that we shouldn't ignore in the age of technology.

Well, things just got a little more complicated.

https://winteriscoming.net/2018/06/08/peter-jackson-not-involved-amazons-lord-rings-series

"t sounded like they were doing the right thing [with the show], they have very good intentions with it, it all sounds very fascinating and exciting. However, I would not want to be the one responsible for the entire TV series, simply because I've never been responsible for a series like this before in my life. So it would not be very smart if I took on the role of showrunner. What I'm actually doing right now is putting the creative team together."

So Jackson might be serving as some kind of consultant or something? He'll be handpicking the crew for the show?

Seems interesting.

It would appear that the long and the short of it is Jackson will have the level of involvement that he chooses. Now, don't mistake me for some big-brained Hollywood insider bro but if your potential boss is telling you that you will define your own job description, rest assured you're being offered virtually blank checks, both creatively and financially. If Jackson doesn't get in on this thing, I can only surmise that it's because he doesn't want to.

Here's a roundup of a few news items:

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2018/06/12/105126-additional-details-on-amazons-lord-of-the-rings-tv-series

But there's something else:

http://www.indiewire.com/2018/06/amazon-lord-of-the-rings-tv-series-not-original-new-zealand-1201973431/amp

"The deal Amazon landed with the estate gives it access to nearly all of the material in the Middle Earth saga (although not 100% of it)."

What does that mean, exactly? Does that mean all of Tolkien's published works, e.g., the entire Legendarium? Or does "Middle-earth saga" refer strictly to LOTR and nothing else? It's a piss-poor way to phrase it.

The basic punchline in all of this is that we'll know more in about a month. Wow, just in time for Comic-Con. It looks like somebody sent Salke out there to prime the pump a little bit for bigger news at Comic-Con.

When it comes to Tolkien, I'm in more or less the same place as I am with Superman. I don't need more stuff. If good stuff can be had, I'm all for it. But I don't NEED a prequel LOTR show or a Beren & Luthien mega-series or something. But if this LOTR prequel show can be done in an entertaining way... eh, I'll give it a go.

I do want to know what is meant by "Middle-earth saga" though...

I finished reading The Fall of Gondolin and can confirm it's another triumphant addition to the Tolkien library. I'd already read earlier versions of the story published in The Silmarillion and Lost Tales, but it's more satisfying to have a comprehensive edition collected in a single volume with added commentary. Beren and Lúthien, The Children of Húrin and The Fall of Gondolin were the three tales of the First Age that Tolkien had always wanted to expand upon. And now all three are available in individual books, it feels as though the trilogy is complete. Though in reality, The Children of Húrin is the only truly complete novel amongst them.

'First draft syndrome' is a worryingly common occurrence these days. Too many creative individuals fail to apply critical thought to their own work and instead simply run with the first bad idea that pops into their heads. When you look at something like The Fall of Gondolin, you see how Tolkien continually refined and improved his work over the course of decades. The evolution of the text displays a level of creative care which is seldom evidenced in modern genre fiction. It's genuinely impressive and gives me an even greater appreciation for his writing.

Speaking of Tolkien, I also finished reading C. S. Lewis' Space Trilogy earlier this summer. Lewis was good friends with Tolkien and both were members of the Oxford Inklings society. While Lewis created his own epic work of high fantasy literature – The Chronicles of Narnia – he also wrote three science fiction novels aimed at an older readership. Interestingly, the third of these books – That Hideous Strength (1945) – contains several in-universe references to Númenor (spelled 'Numinor' in Lewis' book), thus implying the Space Trilogy may occur within the same reality as Tolkien's legendarium. In his preface, Lewis teases the reader with the following: "Those who would like to learn further about Numinor and the True West must (alas!) await the publication of much that still exists only in the MSS of my friend, Professor J. R. R. Tolkien." Tolkien himself supplied an introduction to the first book in Lewis' Space Trilogy – Out of the Silent Planet (1938) – while an extract from one of his letters to The Daily Telegraph serves as an afterword to the final book.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 11 Sep  2018, 22:22I finished reading The Fall of Gondolin and can confirm it's another triumphant addition to the Tolkien library. I'd already read earlier versions of the story published in The Silmarillion and Lost Tales, but it's more satisfying to have a comprehensive edition collected in a single volume with added commentary. Beren and Lúthien, The Children of Húrin and The Fall of Gondolin were the three tales of the First Age that Tolkien had always wanted to expand upon. And now all three are available in individual books, it feels as though the trilogy is complete. Though in reality, The Children of Húrin is the only truly complete novel amongst them.

I've been of two minds about checking them out, tbh.

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.

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.

The Fall Of Gondolin is a priority though. Definitely checking that out at some point.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 12 Sep  2018, 23:43On 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.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 12 Sep  2018, 23:43Since 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.

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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgmEEDyeDv8

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.

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

...

Yeah, I'm so there.

Second trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjBKkkjcL0Y

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.

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.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu,  7 Mar  2019, 02:47
Second trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjBKkkjcL0Y

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.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri,  8 Mar  2019, 00:12
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.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri,  8 Mar  2019, 00:12The 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.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat,  9 Mar  2019, 17:38I'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.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat,  9 Mar  2019, 17:38Regarding the final shot of the trailer, I wonder who the figure in the clouds is meant to represent.

(https://i.postimg.cc/SNmmbMXW/Tolkien.png)

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.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat,  9 Mar  2019, 17:38The 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.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat,  9 Mar  2019, 17:38That'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.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat,  9 Mar  2019, 17:38By 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.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 10 Mar  2019, 05:31Of 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.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 10 Mar  2019, 05:31Considering 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.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 10 Mar  2019, 05:31Either 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.

Some Tolkien fans are quibbling over Hoult's lack of a mustache. During the period of Tolkien's life shown in the two trailers, he had a mustache. It was pretty common in those days.

They'll all still see the movie, mind you. They just wish he had the 'stache.

IGN posted a report from a WonderCon panel last week where Tolkien director Dome Karukoski and several cast members discussed the upcoming biopic. It all sounds very encouraging.

https://uk.ign.com/articles/2019/03/30/tolkien-biopic-will-celebrate-lord-of-the-rings-authors-life

Dome Karukoski's Tolkien biopic has being getting decidedly mixed reviews. I went to see it this afternoon. Here are my thoughts.

The film focuses on Tolkien's formative years at secondary school and university, with the dramatic emphasis placed on his relationships with Edith Bratt and the other members of the Tea Club, Barrovian Society. I've been enjoying Roger Lancelyn Green's Arthurian stories lately (he's much better than T. H. White, IMO), so I was hoping that he, Lewis and the rest of the Inklings literary circle might factor into the film. Alas, the movie skips over that part of Tolkien's life entirely. It also doesn't depict the period of his life surrounding the publication of his most famous novels, nor does it show the impact their phenomenal success had on him and his family. Omissions such as these make the movie feel woefully incomplete. It's as though the filmmakers wanted to explore how the T. C. B. S. inspired the Fellowship of the Ring and little else besides. The usual trappings of a high quality period drama are present in the sets, costumes and cinematography. But the narrative window is so narrow that it never penetrates below surface level or offers a meaningful look at the inner workings of the title character. At best, it's a surface-level snapshot of a young Tolkien. It's certainly not a detailed portrait.

As you would expect, the film attempts to draw autobiographical parallels between Tolkien and his work, some of which feel very forced. For example, he has a batman in the trenches named Sam. And while suffering from trench fever he's afflicted with visions of what appear to be Ringwraiths cutting down his fellow soldiers at the Somme. Where the film could have drawn more legitimate parallels between his life and his work – as in the tale of Beren and Lúthien – it fails to deliver. Edith's dance is portrayed, but in the movie it happens before Tolkien goes to war instead of upon his return. There is a line at the end about Edith's headstone likening her to a princess from her husband's writing, but it doesn't specify which character. This makes me wonder if there was a legal obstacle preventing the filmmakers from directly referencing Tolkien's First Age stories. Edith's religious conversion is not even mentioned and Tolkien's own faith is conspicuously downplayed, resulting in a curiously inaccurate and secularised portrayal of a devoutly religious man. The concept of sub-creation is also never mentioned.

I was hoping to go against the critics on this one, but I'm struggling to find positive things to say about Tolkien. It's fine. It's a nice looking film with decent performances and a pleasant score by Thomas Newman. But beyond that, it has too few qualities to recommend. It reminds me a bit of Damien Chazelle's First Man (2018) insofar as both films fail to offer any greater insight into their central subjects than what you might find on a Wikipedia page (though First Man is still a better film than Tolkien). Because of this, Karukoski's movie ends up being a disappointingly superficial treatment of its title character. The real Tolkien had a very distinctive personality, and this comes across strongly if you read his letters or watch footage of him being interviewed on YouTube. At no point during Karukoski's biopic did I feel as though that personality had been captured. I never felt like this was the real Tolkien. Rather it felt like a reductive Hollywood portrayal. And that's not a dig at Nicholas Hoult, who delivers a solid performance, but rather a critique of the script and the overall focus of the film, which feels uneven and incomplete.

I wanted to like this movie more than I did, but at the end of the day it's just a very average literary biopic. Not terrible, but not especially good either. If you're keen to see it anyway, then go for it. But if you're on the fence, I'd say wait for it to come out on Netflix. Aside from the trench fever hallucinations, it's not a terribly cinematic movie anyway, so you won't be missing much by not seeing it on the big screen.

It's certainly no Shadowlands.

Your opinion is one of the few I was prepared to trust about this film. And it's a bit heartbreaking. I'll probably watch the film no matter what but I doubt I'll pay money for a ticket at this point. Because why bother with it?

Tolkien's life is rather dramatic. I'm not sure if a chronological presentation of his life is overly cinema-friendly in terms of pacing, tbh. But those are small matters. The fact remains that he was a fascinating man who lived a fascinating life and wrote some of the best literature of the 20th century. Those elements should have been front and center in any bio-movie and it's so obvious that I have to assume there were things happening behind the scenes which kept this movie from being as comprehensive as it should've been.

The sad thing is that I doubt we'll see another Tolkien bio-film any time soon. It's a real shame.

But his written works live on. I take comfort in that.

Other people might enjoy it more than I did. My previous post focused on the negative because those were the things that struck me most, but it's really not a bad film. It's technically accomplished and well acted. And as a superficial depiction of Tolkien's school and college years, it's fine. But for people like us, who already know about Tolkien and would perhaps prefer a more comprehensive exploration of the various influences on his work, it falls short of the mark.

One thing the film does get across quite well is the way language influenced his interest in mythology. But it glosses over other equally important influences, such as nature, politics, folklore philosophy and religion. The film does allude to these things, but only fleetingly. The narrative doesn't actually progress beyond Tolkien's formative years until the last five or ten minutes, at which point it abruptly ends with him writing the first line of The Hobbit. There are many different sides to J R R Tolkien – orphan, husband, soldier, author, poet, philologist, teacher, father, brother, philosopher – and I'm not sure if it's possible to encapsulate them all in a 2-hour film.

As I say, it's not a bad movie. I probably would watch it again if it was on television. But I wouldn't go out of my way to see it a second time.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 12 May  2019, 15:19The sad thing is that I doubt we'll see another Tolkien bio-film any time soon. It's a real shame.

A while ago there were reports of there being two Tolkien films in production. One focusing on his experiences during WW1, and the other on his friendship with C S Lewis. Obviously the first film has been made, but the latter seems to have gotten stuck in development hell.


The IMDb page hasn't been updated since 2016, so it looks as if it's dead in the water. I wonder if the project stalled in response to the Fox Searchlight movie. If so, it could still be revived in the future. With the new Lord of the Rings series coming to Amazon, and a new Chronicles of Narnia series in development for Netflix, now would be a good time to resurrect it.

But even if it does get made, it would face the same problems as Karukoski's picture. Namely that it's bloody difficult to condense so much of one man's life into a single movie. And like the 2019 film, it would have to focus on one particular period of his life at the exclusion of others. But I think a movie focusing on the Inklings and the era surrounding the publication of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings trilogy could potentially result in a more interesting film than the one that's just come out. It wouldn't have as much romance or wartime action, but the right script might capture a more intellectual perspective on Tolkien's writing. Even just a film about the Inklings – a group of creative intellectuals whose collective endeavours produced some of the finest literature of the 20th century – could make for a fascinating film.

But for now at least we've got the new Lord of the Rings Amazon series on the horizon. I've been revisiting the LotR appendices lately, and there's actually a lot more material there than I remembered. Certain events are recounted in more detail than they are in The Silmarillion. Earlier this year a map containing Númenor was posted on the TV show's Twitter page along with the caption "Welcome to the Second Age."


An epic drama about the destruction of Númenor could be amazing. I'm looking forward to seeing how this develops.

Finally watched Tolkien last night. I rather enjoyed it. I am familiar with the arguments as to why this movie isn't as definitive as it might be. For my own participation, I do think there are some shortcuts taken with Professor Tolkien's creative process vis a vis the creation of/inspiration for Middle-earth and the Legendarium.

The Nazgul, Sauron, the Dear Marshes, Smaug, etc, were (according to the film) inspired by the professor's experiences at the Battle of the Somme. The Dead Marshes, I could see. But the rest... well, I put that down to taking some creative license with the material. It might be true too for all I know. This isn't quite Shakespeare In Love but I'm just not convinced of the creative origins of some Legendarium concepts. I am open to being proved wrong, however.

My critique of the film is that I was originally hoping for something that would show us Tolkien writing LOTR and how the book's eventual success affected his life. And, put plainly, that's not at all what this film is. Not even close. That doesn't make the film bad. It simply means I need to adjust my expectations. Adjusting them proved to be no challenge.

And still, I do enjoy what the film is. The value of friendship which so clearly influenced Tolkien's work has a clear antecedent with the TCBS. It doesn't take much imagination to understand why the TCBS was so important to a poor orphan like Tolkien.

Is Tolkien, the film, perfect? I don't think so. But in the final analysis, it is really good and I do think it's mandatory viewing for anybody who admires Tolkien's work.

https://comicbook.com/movies/2020/01/16/christopher-tolkien-dead-obituary-jrr-tolkien

RIP Christopher Tolkien.

I have paid tribute to Tolkien in this thread on a few occasions in this thread that I can immediately think of. And yet, I have to do it again now because the man is gone. In terms of the Legendarium, Christopher's impact is second only to Professor Tolkien himself. Personally, I do not dispute that Christopher was easily, clearly Professor Tolkien's biggest fan. Being a cheerleader for his father's work by itself would've been enough to win my undying respect.

But Christopher's work goes much deeper than that. Put plainly, Christopher expanded upon his father's work with his father's own words that have enriched the Legendarium and his father's legacy in ways that were simply unimaginable to those who lived before the publication of The Silmarillion.

Of course, Christopher wasn't content to let the matter rest after that. He spent the last four decades curating and publishing the professor's work in ways that shed light on the stories of Middle-earth while also informing the public as to his father's creative process.

And STILL Christopher wasn't done.

He knew he could have made a mint by licensing the Legendarium out to other authors. I have no doubt that he was offered blank checks to allow other novelists to play in Tolkien's sandbox and write new Middle-earth stories as hardcovers, short stories and all the rest. Quite wisely, in my opinion, Tolkien turned those offers down.

More? Yup, there's more.

Christopher refused to play the game. Never-ending film franchises is where the real money is at these days. The mind boggles at what might be done with a Beren and Luthien film or an extended Fall Of Gondolin Netflix series. But Christopher wanted no part of it. Rather, he wanted the public to enjoy his father's written works rather than be entranced with CGI effects. He was powerless to stop film adaptations of The Hobbit and The Lord Of The Rings, of course. And for that, I think we should be grateful.

But nevertheless, he refused to sell the rights to his father's other works. And in so doing, (A) he gave those unadapted works a well-deserved mystique to those interested in reading them and (B) he preserved the magic and imagination of the written word.

Will the new Amazon series be an entertaining and worthwhile endeavor? Perhaps -- although the recent casting announcement is a mixed bag at best. Still, that decision was made after Christopher had retired. And his record of protecting, championing and embellishing the works of his father remains perfect and unblemished.

I can only hope that Christopher's successors show as much restraint, good taste and scholarship as Christopher himself. Indeed, they have a lot to live up to.

I've seen some horrid comments on other sites regarding this news, with some people attacking Christopher for not liking the Peter Jackson films and saying that his father's books were boring and inferior to the movies. Most people have been kind and respectful, but I have seen the odd nasty comment. Fortunately they're in the minority.

If it wasn't for Christopher, his father's dream of having The Silmarillion published would never have been realised. Nor would any of J R R Tolkien's other posthumous works have appeared in print; at least not in the presentable, well-edited format we got. And that would have deprived fans of some of the greatest stories in the entire Legendarium. At 95 years of age, Christopher had a good innings, and it's nice that he retained his faculties and was able to continue working throughout his winter years. But he will be missed by those of us who appreciated his editing.

I shall be very wary if the Tolkien estate announces any future posthumous works are being published now that Christopher's gone, and I shall also be wary of the estate's future dealings with Hollywood now that he's not around to act as steward. The chances of the First Age books being adapted now more seem more likely than ever, but that mightn't be a good thing. Not if a studio like Warner Bros is calling the shots.

Anyway, rest in peace Christopher.

May Christopher Tolkien rest in peace.  :(

Is the Amazon LOTR show DOA? Tom Shippey apparently has been let go from the show, not to mention the entire writing staff. It's a pretty lengthy livestream but the discussion of the show is frontloaded at the beginning of the stream pretty much so you don't need to search around for discussion about the show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n5Rzxx5Dbc

How true is any of this? Well, these guys are the admins of theonering.net. If anybody is in a position to have authoritative sources inside the production of the show, these are pretty much the two guys you'd expect. I'd listen to what they say.

Speaking only for myself, I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing. On some previous page, I unloaded on SN a little bit, saying words to the effect that maybe not everything needs a movie or show. It's okay for some things to exist only as novels or comics or what have you. Maybe Tolkien's remaining works are better left unadapted. Maybe derivative projects based on Tolkien's work are better left unproduced.

This would be my opinion even if I fully trusted Hollywood. But I don't trust Hollywood so everything above is cranked up to 11.

If you're mourning these rumors, well, I'm sorry. I guess. But it's hard for me to consider any of this stuff as a setback.

This is the first thing I've heard about production problems. I wonder if the death of Christopher Tolkien and the resultant change of leadership at the Tolkien estate is in any way connected. Considering the monumental investment Amazon has placed in this project, I can't see them simply abandoning it. Retooling it, maybe. But not outright cancelling it. But we'll just have to wait and see.

I can't say I'd be too gutted if the show did fall through. I think you and I hold similar perspectives on this, colors – the books constitute the canon, and the entertainment industry just isn't capable of capturing one iota of their magic. Aside from Jackson's TLOTR trilogy, pretty much every screen adaptation of Tolkien's books has ranged from mediocre to poor, and none have truly matched the brilliance of the original text. Lately we've seen far too many once-beloved stories ruined through bad sequels and TV shows: Star Wars, Star Trek, The Terminator, etc. I'm all in favour of more people enjoying Tolkien's stories, but the best way to experience them is to simply read the books. And it shouldn't take a $1 billion TV show to make people do that.

If the TV series does proceed, I'll give it a fair chance and hope for the best. It might surprise us. But if it falls through, I won't be losing any sleep over it.

Yes. Well, there's a sort of inconvenient (by modern standards) aspect to Tolkien's work. I shall try to put it delicately. But, as you probably already know, he intended the Legendarium to stand in for the myths and legends that the Anglos might have developed but for a certain military invasion. He wanted his writings to be a sort of fictional history of (and for) that ethnic group, specifically.

Without putting too fine a point on it, the casting of this show doesn't exactly live up to what Tolkien's intentions were known to have been.

I haven't been able to stop thinking about the LOTR trilogy all week and how Jackson nailed it.

The mythology, mystery and darkness is so alluring, and as a lover of nature I can easily escape into this world and not come out.

The movies are simply incredible, from Howard Shore - which I now have the complete recording sessions, to the production design. I'm a Matrix trilogy guy but LOTR is side by side. I dig how they're sword and arrow films but are shot so stylistically and with the integration of CGI. The themes of man at risk of annihilation, the spread of mindless hate by savages and those who have little faith and sell out.

The against all odds bravery of it all. Dialogue like "send these foul beasts into the abyss!" Just love it.

We'll always have the original trilogy, but it can't be overstated just how much Star Wokes with Rey and Finn ruined that franchise as a cherished memory. I didn't like the Hobbit as much, but I don't think it's a DisneyWars situation. The franchise at least still ends on the note of ROTK.

The Hobbit is in the trilogy lore's past and you can kinda take it or leave it.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 21 Jun  2020, 08:54
The Hobbit is in the trilogy lore's past and you can kinda take it or leave it.

I find I'm becoming more protective of The Hobbit as time goes by. It's a more holistic adaptation of the novel than anything. Jackson expanded the story out using some material from the LOTR novel's appendices. The result is that the canvas is much broader than Tolkien himself probably imagined back in the 1930's. Nevertheless, it's expanded based on material primarily supplied by Tolkien's own pen. And for me, that gives the padding that Jackson added into the narrative some legitimacy.

And yes, Howard Shore's work on LOTR and The Hobbit is unparalleled. Together, they're the greatest film scores ever recorded. People can say whatever they want about The Hobbit films but there's no criticizing the music. Shore's film scores are worth the price of admission all by themselves, if you ask me.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 21 Jun  2020, 08:54The mythology, mystery and darkness is so alluring, and as a lover of nature I can easily escape into this world and not come out.

This is one of the reasons why, for me, Tolkien's mythology trumps those of so many other fantasy writers. I've never watched Games of Thrones, but I have read the first few books in George R. R. Martin's A Song of Fire and Ice series, and I would never want to visit the world he created. It's a dark nihilistic quagmire of murder and rape inhabited by an almost entirely unlikeable cast of characters. Tolkien's world contains dark and terrifying places too, not to mention some truly evil villains, but it also has beautiful and tranquil locations and likeable heroes you'd want to befriend in real life. A lot of people would love to live in Tolkien's world, and whenever you read the books, or watch the movies, you get to do precisely that. The immersive nature of his stories transports you to another world, at least for a little while. That's part of what makes The Lord of the Rings so magical.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 21 Jun  2020, 08:54
I haven't been able to stop thinking about the LOTR trilogy all week and how Jackson nailed it.

The mythology, mystery and darkness is so alluring, and as a lover of nature I can easily escape into this world and not come out.

The movies are simply incredible, from Howard Shore - which I now have the complete recording sessions, to the production design. I'm a Matrix trilogy guy but LOTR is side by side. I dig how they're sword and arrow films but are shot so stylistically and with the integration of CGI. The themes of man at risk of annihilation, the spread of mindless hate by savages and those who have little faith and sell out.

The against all odds bravery of it all. Dialogue like "send these foul beasts into the abyss!" Just love it.

We'll always have the original trilogy, but it can't be overstated just how much Star Wokes with Rey and Finn ruined that franchise as a cherished memory. I didn't like the Hobbit as much, but I don't think it's a DisneyWars situation. The franchise at least still ends on the note of ROTK.

The Hobbit is in the trilogy lore's past and you can kinda take it or leave it.

Yes, indeed. I've watched the three LOTR movies again recently and they're even better than I remembered them. I love the books and I love the world Tolkien created through them, it would not have been easy for anyone to adapt this story to film and as far as I am concerned Peter Jackson really nailed it.  I can't think of other high fantasy movies that could come close. These films are near perfect to me.

I'm also not as big on the Hobbit movies, but they weren't terrible, and as you said, it doesn't affect our enjoyment of the LOTR trilogy. Maybe I'll give the Hobbit movies another go as well.

Speaking of The Lord of the Rings, I just want to say Rest in Peace to one of my all-time favourite actors, Sir Ian Holm, who died on Friday at the age of 88.

He was superb in so many films, including Alien, Time Bandits, Chariots of Fire, Dreamchild, and The Sweet Hereafter, perhaps his finest performance, but he will be known to many as Bilbo Baggins, one of the most spot-on pieces of casting in film history.  I won't post a gif here, because it gives me the shivers, but the scene where he goes from the placid, sweet and unassuming Bilbo we all love to a snarling and monstrous ring-obsessed junkie, in the blink of a second, has to be one of the biggest fright-jumps in film.

Rest in Peace.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Mon, 22 Jun  2020, 18:29
I'm also not as big on the Hobbit movies, but they weren't terrible, and as you said, it doesn't affect our enjoyment of the LOTR trilogy. Maybe I'll give the Hobbit movies another go as well.

I'm going to. A component I enjoyed was Gandalf's investigation which leads to his encounter with Sauron. I like the atmosphere that has, and the way it serves as a precursor to the events of the trilogy. The Hobbit films do segue in well to LOTR, even if some of the content isn't as good. I'm currently viewing the uneventful portions of the Hobbit films as simply more time to spend in this version of Middle Earth.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Mon, 22 Jun  2020, 18:29Yes, indeed. I've watched the three LOTR movies again recently and they're even better than I remembered them. I love the books and I love the world Tolkien created through them, it would not have been easy for anyone to adapt this story to film and as far as I am concerned Peter Jackson really nailed it.  I can't think of other high fantasy movies that could come close. These films are near perfect to me.

I'm also not as big on the Hobbit movies, but they weren't terrible, and as you said, it doesn't affect our enjoyment of the LOTR trilogy. Maybe I'll give the Hobbit movies another go as well.

I accidentally skipped my 2020 rewatch of LOTR. So I'm thinking about scheduling it for this coming weekend. LOTR has been on my mind a lot lately so it's possible.

As to The Hobbit trilogy, I've come around a fair amount on them. The most troublesome aspect is the narrative filibustering of prolonged action sequences and mining the LOTR appendices for material.

But as I say, I've come around. And one acknowledgement I have to make is the legitimacy of Jackson doing a more holistic adaptation of The Hobbit, vis a vis adapting the novel itself while also taking some relevant material from the LOTR appendices. I cannot and will not justify the existence of Tauriel. But I can say that it's fair to include material pertinent to the investigation of Dol Guldur, the Ring, Saruman and all that fun stuff.

For better or for worse, Jackson inverted Tolkien's publishing order. Tolkien wrote LOTR as a sequel to The Hobbit. But in film, The Hobbit is now a prequel to LOTR. Maybe that was unavoidable but Jackson evidently wanted to make adapting The Hobbit after first adapting LOTR work in his favor. We can question certain creative choices he made but in the big scheme of things, I'm prepared to say that The Hobbit films are overdue for a reappraisal.

But if The Hobbit films are still found wanting, well, there's always the Maple Films Edit of the trilogy to condense it all down into a more comprehensible narrative.

I'm doing a re-read of LOTR right now after many years. I'm currently up to Chapter IV. I'm of two minds about the plot decisions of Tolkien and Jackson. Tolkien is the king because he laid it down for all to see. But so far, casting fresh eyes over the pages, I prefer Jackson's beginning to the story.

Tolkien has 17 years pass between Bilbo's party and Frodo's departure, which works fine in the context of a book. Gandalf has suspicions, but largely because what he's told by Saruman about the ring he pushes his concerns away. I can buy that. The time gap also allows Frodo to leave the Shire on his adventure around the same age as Bilbo did all those years ago. Having Frodo sell the house gives more of an explanation as to his departure. I can appreciate those details.

My issue is more about when Gandalf and Frodo KNOW what the ring is. Gandalf doesn't know the Riders are out in the wild. But Gandalf knows The Enemy knows where the ring is, and who has it. That should be enough to get moving, rather than wait around and create a cover story, that arouses suspicion anyway.

So overall I prefer the urgency of the film's opening. Once the bell has been rung it's a big, scary threat coming your way. The starting gun has been fired and it's game on.

The films are long by any standard, and they couldn't have filmed absolutely everything. But I think the translation was done rather well, providing a different but similar slant on the same story. The novel is always there for the truly expanded experience.

https://www.theonering.net/torwp/2021/01/15/110110-reading-list-to-prepare-for-amazons-middle-earth-tv-series

As the title suggests, it's basically a reading list to bring newbies up to speed on Tolkien's published works as prep for the show. Nothing you couldn't have guessed, frankly.

Still, there are some interesting admissions going on here.

For one thing, it seems that TORN is back to trying to put a happy face on this show. I can understand. (A) Nobody's seen the show yet so why freak out about it and (B) between now and panic time, there is ad revenue to consider. As it stands, I have no criticism of TORN at this time. Esp since the mask has slipped a few times and they've made it clear how panicked they actually are about the show.

For two things, they state that Amazon purchased the rights to The Silmarillion. Which... makes sense. Christopher Tolkien stepped down from managing the estate and like two seconds later the show was announced. As some of you probably know, Christopher was probably the best guardian Tolkien's work ever had, refusing to sell any more film rights because he despises Peter Jackson, Hollywood, etc. Or maybe, he simply wants audiences to engage with his father's written works rather than with film adaptations he considers pointless. Either way, I have only positive things to say about Christopher. He knew he was turning his back on a fortune but he believed there are things far more important than money.

If that's true, if The Silmarillion rights have indeed been sold... *sigh*

That truly would be dark times. If a TV show had to be made, I think it might've made sense to test drive Amazon's commitment by giving them something smaller than The Silmarillion and letting them work on that. More business decisions can follow thereafter.

As it stands, I have very little hope for this show. I hope I eat my words but the cast seems pretty uninspired, the wokeness seems poised to take over if it hasn't already and even if the rumored story ideas are as good as they sound, the future isn't necessarily bright for this show, imo.

I reassert that maybe not everything needs to get adapted into a movie or show. There's nothing wrong with letting a novel be a novel, a comic book be a comic book, etc.

But in the true spirit of adaptation, Ian Malcom's words could be applied here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY-pUxKQMUE

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  6 Feb  2021, 01:27I reassert that maybe not everything needs to get adapted into a movie or show. There's nothing wrong with letting a novel be a novel, a comic book be a comic book, etc.

This is the final word on the matter, as far as I'm concerned. I've little to no hope for this series. Not since it was announced that they put out a casting call for extras willing to appear nude and were hiring intimacy coaches to direct love scenes. Whatever this show is, it sounds like it won't be reflective of Tolkien's vision or values. And if that's the case, then I hope the true Tolkien fans do everything they can to make it a failure and teach Amazon and the rest of the entertainment industry a hard lesson in financial loss. I just wish Christopher was still alive to help fight the good fight.

I've said before that I believe the film and television industries are currently in their worst state ever. They might be raking in the money, but they're creatively and morally bankrupt. When trash like Bridgerton is being praised as high quality historical drama, you know pop culture's screwed. Ultimately Tolkien's writing just isn't compatible with the values and attitudes of the modern entertainment industry. The only good screen version of his work, IMHO, is Jackson's The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, and it's a miracle those movies turned out as well as they did. They wouldn't if they were made today. Thankfully the trilogy came along at the perfect time, but I'm highly sceptical we'll ever see another screen version of Tolkien's work to match its quality. Which is a shame, because his First Age books contain enough material for at least five or six really exciting films and wouldn't require padding like The Hobbit movies did.

Bottom line – stick with the books.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 21 Jun  2020, 13:54

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 21 Jun  2020, 08:54
The Hobbit is in the trilogy lore's past and you can kinda take it or leave it.

I find I'm becoming more protective of The Hobbit as time goes by. It's a more holistic adaptation of the novel than anything. Jackson expanded the story out using some material from the LOTR novel's appendices. The result is that the canvas is much broader than Tolkien himself probably imagined back in the 1930's. Nevertheless, it's expanded based on material primarily supplied by Tolkien's own pen. And for me, that gives the padding that Jackson added into the narrative some legitimacy.

And yes, Howard Shore's work on LOTR and The Hobbit is unparalleled. Together, they're the greatest film scores ever recorded. People can say whatever they want about The Hobbit films but there's no criticizing the music. Shore's film scores are worth the price of admission all by themselves, if you ask me.

This is where my focus has been lately. The Hobbit movies are padded but despite complaints about disrespecting the source material, the core story is still there.

An Unexpected Journey

Bilbo enlisted to be a burglar
Dwarves arriving at Bag End
Captured by trolls, with Gandalf turning them to stone.
Finds swords in the troll's storage supplies
Visiting Rivendell
Stone giants hurling rocks, then captured by Goblins
Bilbo encounters Gollum in the cave
Goblin King killed by Gandalf, and the party escape
Attacked by Wargs, and escape via eagles

The Desolation of Smaug

Visiting the home of Beorn
Entering Mirkwood, and Gandalf leaves them
Group attacked by spiders, which Bilbo slays
Captured by wood elves, and escape via barrels in the river
Reaching the Lonely Mountain and finding the secret door
Smaug awakened

The Battle of the Five Armies

Smaug attacks Lake Town, and killed via arrow
Thorin declaring the Mountain besieged
Thorin searches for the Arkenstone, which Bilbo steals
The battle itself against the Goblins and Wargs
Death of Thorin

As I said initially, it's just a matter of personal taste as to the differences in the story.

In the novel they are hunted by Goblins and Wargs following the incident with the Goblin King. Azog should be dead, and in the books he is. In the movie he was thought to be dead. It's not a popular choice but it gives added motivation behind that dogged Goblin pursuit, and there's a clear villain leading that pursuit with meaningful history behind him. There's wiggle room to add this so it's not out of left field.

In the novel they do visit Rivendell, which allows the movie timeline to be twisted much like with Azog, to allow Saruman and Galdriel to cameo at the location as a movie-verse Easter egg for a council scene. In the books Gandalf had been to Dol Duldur twice before, here he's doing his initial investigation. From the chapter tiled The Last Stage: "Had been to the great council of the White Wizards, masters of lore and good magic, and that they had at last driven the Necromancer from his dark hold in the south of Mirkwood." It's different but essentially the same.

The addition of Tauriel and the love triangle is what brings real grievance. Legolas wasn't in the book, but again, there's wiggle room to do so.

The Hobbit films are not perfect but are definitely underrated if one doesn't get too hung up over the differences. Martin Freeman is better than Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen remains excellent and Howard Shore is a genius. There's still good things in here. When one treats the movies as inspired by the general direction of the books, but their own thing, I find they're much more enjoyable. It's 'The Movie Universe' and it segues into Jackson's Rings trilogy beautifully.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 24 Mar  2021, 07:13
As I said initially, it's just a matter of personal taste as to the differences in the story.

In the novel they are hunted by Goblins and Wargs following the incident with the Goblin King. Azog should be dead, and in the books he is. In the movie he was thought to be dead. It's not a popular choice but it gives added motivation behind that dogged Goblin pursuit, and there's a clear villain leading that pursuit with meaningful history behind him. There's wiggle room to add this so it's not out of left field.

In the novel they do visit Rivendell, which allows the movie timeline to be twisted much like with Azog, to allow Saruman and Galdriel to cameo at the location as a movie-verse Easter egg for a council scene. In the books Gandalf had been to Dol Duldur twice before, here he's doing his initial investigation. From the chapter tiled The Last Stage: "Had been to the great council of the White Wizards, masters of lore and good magic, and that they had at last driven the Necromancer from his dark hold in the south of Mirkwood." It's different but essentially the same.

The addition of Tauriel and the love triangle is what brings real grievance. Legolas wasn't in the book, but again, there's wiggle room to do so.

The Hobbit films are not perfect but are definitely underrated if one doesn't get too hung up over the differences. Martin Freeman is better than Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen remains excellent and Howard Shore is a genius. There's still good things in here. When one treats the movies as inspired by the general direction of the books, but their own thing, I find they're much more enjoyable. It's 'The Movie Universe' and it segues into Jackson's Rings trilogy beautifully.

When AUJ first came out, there was a bit of a backlash. I wouldn't say it was Episode I-tier nastiness. But there was some controversy. Someone published a thing on Huffington Post about it and I think the writer makes some solid points:

Dislike Peter Jackson's The Hobbit ? Then You Don't Know Tolkien.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/dislike-peter-jacksons-em_b_2342591.html

I don't like Tauriel and that whole subplot any more than anyone else. But getting stuck on that when Jackson brought so much other Tolkien lore to the screen misses the forest for the trees, if you ask me.

Agreed. Radagast is only mentioned in Tolkien's Hobbit, but because he wasn't included in Jackson's Rings trilogy it makes good sense to include him in the prequels. Radagast encountering the Necromancer, and Gandalf following up on his warning, hits two birds with one stone. As for Radagast's absence in the Rings trilogy, I'm cool thinking he kept to himself, cared for animals and let the powerful forces duke it out.

As for the Nazgul being in tombs, it is something Jackson invented. But what is the definition of a Necromancer? A person who uses witchcraft or sorcery, especially to reanimate dead people or to foretell the future by communicating with them. By strict definition that's what Jackson depicts in his Hobbit films.

I see it this way: whether they're in exile or dead, without the presence of Sauron the Wraiths are largely biding their time. The simple concept which is present in the book remains: when Sauron is activated they are too.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 25 Mar  2021, 01:32
Agreed. Radagast is only mentioned in Tolkien's Hobbit, but because he wasn't included in Jackson's Rings trilogy it makes good sense to include him in the prequels. Radagast encountering the Necromancer, and Gandalf following up on his warning, hits two birds with one stone. As for Radagast's absence in the Rings trilogy, I'm cool thinking he kept to himself, cared for animals and let the powerful forces duke it out.

As for the Nazgul being in tombs, it is something Jackson invented. But what is the definition of a Necromancer? A person who uses witchcraft or sorcery, especially to reanimate dead people or to foretell the future by communicating with them. By strict definition that's what Jackson depicts in his Hobbit films.

I see it this way: whether they're in exile or dead, without the presence of Sauron the Wraiths are largely biding their time. The simple concept which is present in the book remains: when Sauron is activated they are too.

Personally, I'm willing to give Jackson a lot of leeway since some amount of interpretation is necessary for ANY kind of adaptation of Tolkien's writings. I think this is even more true with The Hobbit, where your basic source material is smaller in the first place anyway.

Meanwhile, from the fake news dump:

News Corp to purchase 'Lord of the Rings' titles- https://thehill.com/homenews/media/545417-news-corp-to-purchase-lord-of-the-rings-titles

Except they're not. The story itself says "News Corp will pay $349 million to buy the publisher of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy and other J.R.R. Tolkien books."

So, if I'm reading this right (and I'd like to think I am), this is basically just another corporate merger. The Tolkien estate will maintain ownership of Professor Tolkien's writings just like always. Rly, the only thing that might change is the publisher logo on the cover of Tolkien's various books and not much else. But I must say, when I first read that headline, my heart sank.

But that headline is just plain irresponsible "journalism". Because we're far beyond "misleading" at this point. But even with the clarification within the story itself, the article's commenters with their room temperature IQ's don't seem to understand the difference between the publishing rights which News Corp is proposing buying and the actual ownership of the books themselves. Again, it looks to me like the Tolkien estate's ownership of the Tolkien catalog will continue.

Anyway, just wanted to throw all that out there.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 30 Mar  2021, 04:19
Personally, I'm willing to give Jackson a lot of leeway since some amount of interpretation is necessary for ANY kind of adaptation of Tolkien's writings. I think this is even more true with The Hobbit, where your basic source material is smaller in the first place anyway.

The story as is gives Jackson plenty of room for expansion. In the book, the dwarves were imprisoned by the wood elves for 20 days, which gives any plotline inside the building plausibility even if one dislikes said plotline. They then spend a fortnight in Lake Town. The Battle of the Five Armies is a brief couple of pages and most of the main events are recounted to Bilbo after the fact because he's knocked out. The book is an all time classic but to say it couldn't be fleshed out to include more detail is false.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 30 Mar  2021, 04:19
So, if I'm reading this right (and I'd like to think I am), this is basically just another corporate merger. The Tolkien estate will maintain ownership of Professor Tolkien's writings just like always. Rly, the only thing that might change is the publisher logo on the cover of Tolkien's various books and not much else.

Seems like it.

Maybe a critique of the Amazon show that comes from a poc Tolkien fan will help everyone see the problems here more clearly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZqNCnvVnco

Just Some Guy tries to be pretty even-handed with everything he says. Even when I don't necessarily agree with him, at least I can understand his thinking behind what he says. That's how you're supposed to build common ground with others.

Great video, and the comments below by the likes of Bogart Hardshaft and Storm the Cat are even better.  I love the 2003 trilogy, and find The Hobbit trilogy underrated for what it sought to achieve. But I don't expect the Amazon show will be passing my test. The Lord of the Rings is a traditional story of its time but also accurately reflects the modern world as it is. Men fighting for their very survival against savage orcs and sellouts like Saruman. Wokeness is INCOMPATIBLE to the original spirit of the book - period.

Anyone who doesn't see that obvious truth is a lost cause going against the very foundations of the brand. But that's not surprising as most people don't even have their own opinions, they are assigned to them by mainstream messaging and cemented to them with groupthink.

I wasn't going to go there. Because apparently, there's no way to have an honest and even-handed discussion about this without someone making insane accusations about your character.

But... this truly is getting close to the worst case scenario. There are other elements of the cultural Marxist playbook that aren't (yet) known to be in the mix. But if the casting decisions are any indication, the signs aren't looking positive.

Luckily, I'm not disappointed at all in this news. Because I was skeptical about this series from early days. There are many unchronicled (or under-chronicled) years of Middle-earth history. And at this point especially, I think that stuff is best left to the imagination.

This show will be an expensive but glorious train wreck. And no, I won't watch it, not even from morbid curiosity.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 14 Feb  2022, 14:50
And no, I won't watch it, not even from morbid curiosity.

Seconded.

The Amazon series really doesn't upset me or make me angry for the simple reason that it's pure fan fiction. Literally. It's like those slash fiction stories written by shippers about Sam and Frodo being gay. Those fans want to impose an aspect of their own worldview onto Tolkien's mythology – an aspect which is absent from the canon – so they write fan fiction. The makers of this TV show are doing the same thing, and the end product is equally apocryphal. The fact they've licensed the brand name doesn't matter. It's still non-canonical fan fiction, plain and simple, and that's all it will ever be.

If these are the 'superfans' the Amazon show is targeting, then it really is DOA.


They'd have to be monumentally blind not to see that this has disaster written all over it. Amazon's got deep pockets, so we can expect the MSM to launch a wave of defensive damage control articles any day now. The substance of those articles will amount to corporate shilling and labelling the show's detractors with the usual –ist and –obe ad hominems. A cast member, preferably female and non-white, will also make a show of quitting social media due to claims of bullying, and the MSM will seize upon her victimhood to garner sympathy for Amazon and smear the entire Tolkien fanbase as racist misogynistic trolls. Ultimately the show will bomb, garnering high critic ratings but low audience scores. The studio will lose millions of dollars, the fans will laugh harder than Ray Liotta in Goodfellas, and the MSM will decry the outcome as a triumph for the far right and toxic fan entitlement.

SN, there is a pattern to this sort of thing.

https://disneystarwarsisdumb.wordpress.com/2018/11/28/the-phases-of-a-geeker-gate-4th-edition-plus-countermeasures

I had been feeling good about LOTR for a number of years. Jackson's films have their detractors from Tolkien purists, but those complaints are going to look incredibly minor in comparison to what's coming.

Inserting modern wokeness into a sword and arrow timeline cuts deep against the very foundation of what Tolkien established. If they can't accept that, his world isn't for them.

'Broadening the appeal' means alienating the core fanbase. This comment from a so called medieval scholar states "I think a lot of fans are pushing back against where the show may be going, because it conflicts in some cases with their mental image of Middle-earth."

On the contrary, Amazon are pushing back against the makeup of Tolkien because it conflicts with THEIR mental image of "what the world actually looks like", as the show's executive producer Lindsey Weber put it.

Tom Shippey, who worked with Jackson on his films, was brought on to ensure the show would remain faithful to the source material. He left the project. To justify this show they need to make villains out of the Tolkien fanbase.

The core message of Tolkien is the decay of the West, and we are seeing that right now. The past is bad and needs to be 'fixed'. Build back better, they say. Everything they touch withers and dies. But enough time passes and it becomes the accepted norm. That's what they want.

"The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air. Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it."

I've just been admiring some of Tolkien's paintings, and they're as beautiful as his writing.


It's impressive enough that he was gifted with such a powerful imagination, but it's even more impressive that he possessed the artistic talent to express his creativity in different mediums, spanning poetry, prose, illustrations, maps and paintings. HarperCollins has announced the publication of a new edition of The Silmarillion that will contain some of his original art: https://www.thebookseller.com/rights/rights/harpercollins-to-publish-new-edition-of-the-silmarillion-illustrated-by-tolkien


I already own a copy of The Silmarillion, but I might buy this new edition anyway. It's a book that's always worth rereading and Tolkien's art should justify the price of a second purchase. It'll be in shops this October.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OTowbPS9fU

ME has done a round up of the early reviews. And to say they're "not all positive" is a pretty big understatement.

For comparison, I watched some Gollum clips from Towers on YouTube a few days ago. Now yes, some of that mo-cap/CGI stuff is a bit chintzy by modern standards. But the character himself (not to mention Towers as a film) is overflowing with life and energy. Jackson, Walsh and Boyens knew what they were up to with the trilogy. And so, they bent over backwards to absurd degrees to make sure they gave the material their best possible effort. Nothing less than their absolute best was allowed into the films.

For any of you struggling with disappointment about this Amazon thing, I invite you to reread the books or rewatch the LOTR trilogy to remind you that there is good in Tolkien. And it's worth fighting for. Or, lacking that, it's worth ignoring substandard Amazon nonsense to remain focused on the many good things he's written.

Tolkien's books and Jackson's trilogy are it for me (The Hobbit films to a lesser extent, but I'll include them too). I consider myself a fan of the world but the Amazon show may as well not exist as far as I am concerned. Rings of Power could easily be Game of Thrones or House of the Dragon, neither of which I have any desire to watch and just can't be bothered with. But I won't lie - even when I ignore the show it can't help but impact upon how I think about the sanctity of the overall brand.

What annoys me is that they're marketing this as Tolkien. It isn't Tolkien. Tolkien died in 1973 and this is not his story. He wrote his own account of the Second Age, and this isn't it. The Rings of Power is original fan fiction written by people in Hollywood who bought the rights to use certain character names from the appendices of one of Tolkien's books. It's no more canonical to Tolkien's legendarium than Castlevania is to Bram Stoker's writing, or Herman Munster is to Mary Shelley's.

We've now reached the predictable stage of the 'unpopular reboot playbook' where the studio and media smear the fan base as bigots. We just need a cast member to make a big show of quitting social media to complete the victim narrative.

Meanwhile, Amazon has altered its rating system in response to the flood of negative scores. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/lord-of-the-rings-the-rings-of-power-amazon-review-bombed-1235211190/

I don't know if this is true, but some sources are claiming that the IMDb, which is owned by Amazon, is also fudging the audience ratings. Meanwhile on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic:


One of two things is happening here. Either fans love the show and it really is just a tiny minority of racist trolls using bots to tank the audience scores, in which case Amazon has nothing to worry about. Or Amazon has antagonised the core Tolkien fan base and is merely exacerbating matters by labelling them as racists instead of addressing their real concerns, in which case the studio has forfeited the support of the target demographic and will likely lose monumental sums of money.

To echo what others have already said – if you love Tolkien's creation, then stick with the books. If you want to see that world brought to life on the screen, then watch Jackson's TLOTR film trilogy. That's all you need.

Something that infuriates me is that when audiences express a negative opinion about something, it's "review bombing".

But when professional critics express a negative opinion about something, they're just doing their job.

It's almost like consumers are expected to lap up whatever nonsense Hollywood sees fit to dole out to them and take it without any amount of critical thought. It's insulting, frankly.

The fact is that there aren't enough racists in the entire world to account for the high number of negative reviews The Rings Of Power has received. The great majority of negative audience reviews can only be from the heart.

But, in an effort to find something to be positive about, the production design for TROP (as I've seen it in trailers and other previews; I have precisely zero intention of ever watching this show) legit does appear to be second to none. Obviously, even the greatest production design in the world can't overcome bad writing, weak characters, a boring story or whatever else. But credit where it's due, it looks like somebody involved in the process spared no effort in the art/production design of the show.

Something else that's positive is that Amazon is creating a space for people to reevaluate Jackson's Hobbit films. Maybe they're not perfect. Maybe Jackson needed another year of preproduction. Maybe there should only have been two films rather than three.

But compared to TROP, The Hobbit trilogy is looking pretty legit to a lot of people these days. And speaking of production design, The Hobbit trilogy is criminally underrated on that subject.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 15 Sep  2022, 16:23

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngqO9Hp19_4

Spot on. Look at the butchery of the Little Mermaid.

(https://i.postimg.cc/1tC96cz0/82-F47-B37-26-B0-4-DF3-8-E97-7397-FAA01-AD0.jpg)

Nothing is off limits and it's the same result every time. People don't like what The System is pushing and when that happens the customary defence measures are activated.

TROP is more interested in pushing wokeness than respecting the true spirit of Tolkien, and when the obvious is pointed out the fan becomes the bad guy and a racist by default. Which is now being pushed by original Jackson cast members, who only serve to disgrace themselves by effectively calling many of their own fans racist. If I had any respect for those individuals as people it's now gone. They are going to war against genuine fans who hold genuine passion for their franchise of choice. As a monarch once said, grief is the price we pay for love. These are not trolls relishing the act of critiquing TROP. Their criticisms are real, and in my opinion hold a lot more value than compromised critics who lean left. To dismiss and label them is to keep repeating the same cycle. But it's a cycle that doesn't seem to be stopping as The Powers That Be want entertainment on their terms, and the entertainment itself is incidental to their all important themes.

Recent events have confirmed to me that tradition is important, and in a world that celebrates 'burning it all down' I support preserving what is left.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  4 Nov  2017, 13:00
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.

I wrote that on November 04, 2017. So, basically five years ago.

Amazon had five years to create a show which honored Tolkien's writings and his style, stayed faithful to the spirit of his work if not necessarily the exact letter of it and crafted something that would remind the world why we all fell in love with Tolkien's writings so long ago.

Five years and one billion dollars later, all we've got to show for ourselves is TROP.

Also, this thread's first page is precognitive.

Something else.

I'm a huge fan of Howard Shore's film scores for the LOTR trilogy. He devised over 100 themes/leitmotifs for those three films. For as much credit as Jackson, Walsh and Boyens deserve for bringing that world to life, the truth is that those movies would be a shadow of themselves without Shore's contributions.

When you instantly know that the narrative is taking place in Mordor, the Shire, Rivendell, Isengard, Lothlorien, Gondor, Rohan or wherever else based exclusively on the music, you know the film score is in a whole other category of quality and craftsmanship.

Simply stunning.

I want to revisit two points.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed,  3 Feb  2021, 04:47I'm prepared to say that The Hobbit films are overdue for a reappraisal.

In light of The Rings Of Power, I find that people are starting to take another look at The Hobbit trilogy. Again, they're not perfect. But they're looking more and more legit all the time with the benefit of comparison. And...

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed,  3 Feb  2021, 04:47But if The Hobbit films are still found wanting, well, there's always the Maple Films Edit of the trilogy to condense it all down into a more comprehensible narrative.

This fan edit is four hours long. But it does address many common criticisms of the official films. Plus, the investigation of Dol Guldur and the related material has been separated into its own little hour long "mini movie" that proves (for me, if nobody else) that those scenes with Gandalf, the council and so forth have genuine merit to them. Maybe the context of a Hobbit adaptation is wrong for this story. But it's still a story worth telling, if you ask me.

And The Maple Films Edit is the best of both worlds, honestly.