How many movies would it take to tell the tale of the Ring?

A forum for discussions about The Silmarillion

Re: How many movies would it take to tell the tale of the Ring?

Postby Beren on Fri Dec 26, 2008 6:53 pm

Show wrote:@ Beren. Your reading list you posted. VI, VII, VIII, IX. The return of the Shadow through Sauron Defeated, Isn't that just the Lord of the Rings? That's why I never bought them. Or are they the same story from another view? The war of the Jewels I thought was the story of Fenor's sons trying to recover the Silmarils and the effects of the Doom of Mandos. I have the books of Lost Tales, never did finish them, they were sort of rough draftish and time just never allowed me to get fully going. Now I have a 7 month old baby and time is a luxuary I don't often get to enjoy anymore. What are some of the rest of that listing, I'm curious.


VI, VII, VIII, and IX aren't exactly just "LOTR." They are the History of the Lord of the Rings. In other words, it's the journey that Tolkien went through writing LOTR. All the drafts, initial ideas, editing, etc. It's all in there. It gives you a deeper appreciation for Tolkien's work.

The others are mainly the same thing only with the Silmarillion. I can hardly remember them, though, lol. I know Lays was the two poems, (Turin and Beren and Luthien) and "The Lost Road" was a book he tried to write that he never finished. Tolkien and Lewis decided that Lewis would write about space-travel (his space-trilogy) and Tolkien would write about time travel (this unpublished and unfinished work.) It's very good.

btw, if you want to buy any of these cheaply, just go to www.half.ebay.com. They have some cheap books there.
"You can only come to the morning through the shadows."

-John Ronald Reuel Tolkien
User avatar
Beren
Moderator
 
Posts: 277
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:10 pm

Re: How many movies would it take to tell the tale of the Ring?

Postby Otto's World on Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:52 pm

Thank you for the halfebay.com pointer, Beren. It's amazing what valuable info comes out while people are writing little asides speaking of different topics.

Show, now that you have a tiny one, it is a good time to take advantage of all of the wonderful audio versions of books that are available. You know how your attention is now constantly divided? Always being interrupted? Never able to concentrate as sharply or focusedly as you could before, but yet the baby tasks are not enough to keep your mind entertained enough? Now is as good a time as any for me to plug an audioversion of The Farmer Giles of Ham and Leaf by Niggle and the Smith of Wooton Major. Derek Jacobi does a fabulous job.

Thank you, Beren, for explaining what The Lost Road deals with. I didn't realize that this was the project that Tolkien was working on as a kind of co-writer exercise with C. S. Lewis. I got a book by Verlyn Flieger called A Question of Time (which I quickly set aside for later because it refers so much to The Lost Road, which I have not read). The reason why I got the Question of Time book was because I so admired Flieger's book Splintered Light: Logos and Language in Tolkien's World. Splintered Light is regarded as Flieger's best book, and I recommend it to you, Beren, because you love the Silmarillion, and because I'm guessing that you went on to read all of those History of the Ring books--enduring the tedium of reading rough drafts of Tolkien that you've already read when you might be reading other books on the sci fi shelves--because you recognize something special about Tolkien that you love and want more of and which you aren't finding in rich abundance elsewhere.

I liked Splintered Light a lot first, because I thought that, reading this, for the first time, I might be able to get a toe-hold into The Silmarillion. And...whoa...now that I'm flipping through my copy to better describe it to you, I see that THIS is the book that talks about Beowulf and Tolkien's sympathy with the pagan who has no assurance of a heaven or an afterlife (which I mentioned in another posting in the Fairy-Stories thread). Oooo....oooo....listen to this.

The effect of the poem...comes from an understanding of the inevitability of Beowulf's final defeat. The poet has taken care that there should be no suspense or uncertainty whatever about the outcome. Like all heroes, indeed like all humanity, Beowulf is going to die. "He is a man," says Tolkien, "and that for him and for many is sufficient tragedy." A stark statement, and he follows it with one even more bleak: "life is transitory: light and life together hasten away" ... Like humanity itself, light is perishable, finally to be overcome by the dark. The heroes, those "mighy men upon earth," with courage (not hope or faith) as their stay, must leave the precarius little circle of light to go out into the darkness, to battle with the embodiments of that darkness--the monsters--and ultimately to lose. Heroism in the face of inevitable defeat is the theme of the poem.

Ooo, wow. This book fits well with the discussion thread about Fairy-Stories. Must use it and share more there.

Anyway, Beren, Flieger talks a lot also about Owen Barfield's influence (another Inkling) on Tolkien's thinking--his ideas about language in creating one's reality. "Logos" meaning "Ideas" with a capital "I" and how they are carried by language. You notice how brilliant Tolkien is about creating feelings or flavors just by the way different characters talk? Gollum has his own weird way of speaking, and Sam has his, and Eomer sounds completely different, and Denethor is still different? And all are a different slice or splinter or facet of Illuvatar's light.

Sorry, I'm not being very helpful here. I want to recommend the book to you, Beren. Maybe best to go to Amazon and look it up and read some of the better reviews of the book to get an idea of what it is. Oh hey, I'll save you a trip...or persuade you further to take that trip:
The original 1983 edition, long hard to find, was one of the first books to discuss The Silmarillion in detail, and one of the most insightful: it showed Tolkien applying to his mythology Owen Barfield's principles of the deep relationship between language and the nature of reality, and using fragmented light as a metaphorical depiction of fragmented language.

Though I had always held the belief that God, myth, and language are interconnected ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God") I had never fully grasped the impact and full meaning of that until I read this book.

"C.S. Lewis's comment that Tolkien `had been inside langugae' was thus no figure of speech, but the literal truth. He had been inside the word, had experienced its power and seen with its perception. Others who knew Tolkien came to much the same conclusion. Simonne d'Ardenne, one of Tolkien's Oxford students and herself a philologist, found antoher way to put it...Mlle. d'Ardenne recalled saying to him once, apropos his work: `You broke the veil, didn't you, and passed through?' and she adds that he `readily admitted' having done so." [p. 9]

Logos - as living Word, in which one may get, may live and move and have one's being - connects Tolkien with Barfield as nothing else will. That, though, means one might need to read Barfield too. Flieger brings Tolkien's Silmarillion to life; she brings Tolkien to life; she points one to both Tolkien's and Barfield's philological and philosophical thought and work. Most of all, she gets one as near to being `inside language' - inside Logos - as one has reason to hope, at least by individual effort alone. In that regard, Splintered Light is worth far more than its price just for the above quoted passage alone.


Sorry, once again, so rude of me, putting up so much and not being very clear about it. (whispering: Really, Beren...no kidding...just trust me....get this book for yourself...like maybe from ebay half-price books.)
Otto's World
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:17 am

Re: How many movies would it take to tell the tale of the Ring?

Postby Beren on Sat Dec 27, 2008 4:39 am

I've looked at it, and it looks very interesting...exciting even. But, at the moment, I don't have much money to spare...you should have told me about it before Christmas, so I could have asked for it! :) Anyways, thanks for the reference. I'm sure it'll someday end up on my Tolkien shelf ;).
"You can only come to the morning through the shadows."

-John Ronald Reuel Tolkien
User avatar
Beren
Moderator
 
Posts: 277
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:10 pm

Re: How many movies would it take to tell the tale of the Ring?

Postby Otto's World on Sat Dec 27, 2008 4:54 am

Oh, that's okay. I'll copy out large portions of it in this forum. (Secretly I'm an agent working for the booksellers, and I will continue to try to get you to get the book--or to get your parents to get it for you.) :ugeek:
Otto's World
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:17 am

Re: How many movies would it take to tell the tale of the Ring?

Postby Beren on Sat Dec 27, 2008 5:31 pm

Yeah, I already saw through that. ;)
"You can only come to the morning through the shadows."

-John Ronald Reuel Tolkien
User avatar
Beren
Moderator
 
Posts: 277
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:10 pm

Re: How many movies would it take to tell the tale of the Ring?

Postby Show on Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:07 pm

Assuming that C. Tolkien ends his lawsuits...or dies... what about a movie of the Akellabeth? The rise and fall of Numenor?
Figure you've got a bit too much time frame for a single movie. Maybe just start out with a prolouge that outlines the creation and eventual changes in mood up to Ar-Pharazon's reign. Then make a movie of the restraint of Sauron, followed by his usurption of control in numenor. Ar-Pharazon's planned assult upon Valinor, and the subsequent destruction of Numenor. Make sure to show the faithful's efforts to remain friends with the elves. The gifting the palatir, and the rescue of a sapling of the white tree. It would even make for a great set up for a sequal, The Last Alliance.
I would pay money to see those in theater. And with a strong prolouge like LotR had, I can see it really working.
Thoughts?
Also, I guess reference to Sauron setting aside his ring in Barad Dur should be mentioned while he was takin into captivity by the Numenorians.
To add, I think this movie would be a wonderful backstory for just how good Sauron was at being evil. His time fooling the Elves of Hollin into accepting him and his teachings with craftsmanship (creation of the rings) and his usurption and corroption of Numenor. Sauron the Deciever indeed.
I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.
User avatar
Show
Moderator
 
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 2:51 pm
Location: Woodridge (Chicago Suburbs) Illinois, U.S.A.

Re: How many movies would it take to tell the tale of the Ring?

Postby Beren on Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:07 am

Indeed, I would also pay big bucks to see that in theaters. But I think the big three should be introduced first. I think they are more popular and well-known than the story of the Numenorians. It would be bad for a franchise to start off on a weaker beat. I would say, no matter what, start with Beren and Luthien. The biggest unknown would be whether the franchise could hold on through a possible bad showing for Turin, and go ahead and make Gondolin. I think it'd be much like the Narnia franchise. LWW did VERY well, then Prince Caspian was successful, but an overall letdown. So now Disney has lost interest and jumped ship. VDT is very much in jeopardy. But if they can make it, I predict it'll do much better than PC. Same with Turin and Gondolin. If the franchise can make it through Turin and into Gondolin, there will be a very strong base for more films (like Numenor).
"You can only come to the morning through the shadows."

-John Ronald Reuel Tolkien
User avatar
Beren
Moderator
 
Posts: 277
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:10 pm

Re: How many movies would it take to tell the tale of the Ring?

Postby Show on Tue Dec 30, 2008 5:03 pm

I will agree and disagree Beren. I see your point with going with the Big Three. But for viewing audiences, think of this. They have already met Numenorians. Their remenents are a huge part of LotR. You have Aragorn, Gondor, Arnor, Weathertop, Hints at the Last Alliance, all sorts of Numenor and Westernesse references. Beren & Luthien get a pat on the back at Weathertop with Aragorn singing about it. That and

Interesting thought on the big three. Do you also have to show the fall of Doriath? When Gondolin falls the viewing audience will have known about Doriath and may wonder why they never help. Not knowing that Doriath has fallen already due to the Curse of Mandos coming to call on Thingol.

Turin could go well, I think in movie form we would see lots more of Glaurung (I mean the dragon, I forget which was the sword and which was the dragon, darn Tolkien and his names). Everyone loves dragons, that and the destruction of Nargothrond alone might be able to carry it.
I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.
User avatar
Show
Moderator
 
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 2:51 pm
Location: Woodridge (Chicago Suburbs) Illinois, U.S.A.

Re: How many movies would it take to tell the tale of the Ring?

Postby Otto's World on Tue Dec 30, 2008 7:32 pm

I love the LOTR book and the movies, and I think they did a splendid fabulous admirable job....BUT personally I would have liked more sitting around and telling stories or looking around and enjoying the sights of Imladris (dang, brain cramp. can't remember the regular name of Elrond's little realm) and having fun with the hobbits in their own territory. I thought there was way too much valuable screen time/audience attention span limited time on fights and orc shenannigens. Like Sam, I wanted to "go and see elves and all." But this is just my personal preference, and I am probably in the minority.

One reason people wanted to see LOTR brought to the screen was to be able to visualize the vastness of the battles and the greatness of the vistas (scenery, architecture). When you all envision The Tale of the Ring being brought to the screen, do you think it could resemble the LOTR, or will the movies be much more action, visually oriented? Because the screenwriters will have almost no dialog whatsoever to draw on from Tolkien. So will you mostly look forward to seeing the buildings and the towns and the scale of them and the costumes and the ships and the battles and the ominousness of Melchor-sized monsters? In other words, are you most interested in what the props and set departments will do with the material? Because I do not envy any actors who would be in these movies, nor the writers trying to come up with good lines for them to say. The prologue of the LOTR worked well partly because it was mostly narrated and the actors said very little.
Otto's World
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:17 am

Re: How many movies would it take to tell the tale of the Ring?

Postby Otto's World on Tue Dec 30, 2008 7:35 pm

I love the LOTR book and the movies, and I think they did a splendid fabulous admirable job....BUT personally I would have liked more sitting around and telling stories or looking around and enjoying the sights of Imladris (dang, brain cramp. can't remember the regular name of Elrond's little realm) and having fun with the hobbits in their own territory. I thought there was way too much valuable screen time/audience attention span limited time on fights and orc shenannigens. Like Sam, I wanted to "go and see elves and all." But this is just my personal preference, and I am probably in the minority.

One reason people wanted to see LOTR brought to the screen was to be able to visualize the vastness of the battles and the greatness of the vistas (scenery, architecture). When you all envision The Tale of the Ring being brought to the screen, do you think it could resemble the LOTR, or will the movies be much more action, visually oriented? Because the screenwriters will have almost no dialog whatsoever to draw on from Tolkien. So will you mostly look forward to seeing the buildings and the towns and the scale of them and the costumes and the ships and the battles and the ominousness of Melchor-sized monsters? In other words, are you most interested in what the props and set departments will do with the material? Because I do not envy any actors who would be in these movies, nor the writers trying to come up with good lines for them to say. The prologue of the LOTR worked well partly because it was mostly narrated and the actors said very little.
Otto's World
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:17 am

PreviousNext

Return to The Silmarillion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron