The silmarillion should be spin offs


Have them be many spin off movies like what they are doing with Star Wars of what marvel is doing everything connected to make it work. Have a bunch of different directors try it like Kenneth Branagh,

reply

First - get the rights
1 mark deducted for not being Curse of Fenric. Insert 'The' into previous if you are Ant-Mac

reply

The film rights to The Silmarillion are locked up by the Tolkien Estate controlled presently by Christopher Tolkien. They are unavailable for the foreseeable future. Right now the only way to make more Middle-earth movies is if they can be spun off of The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings without needing to infringe on any other works.

"If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!" - The Joker

reply

I'd like that but it will never happen, sorry.

reply

I'd love to watch it, but an adaptation, not some silly fanfiction like we have with The Hobbit Trilogy.

anyway, it's not like we'll get to watch some adaptation any time soon.

reply

^This!

reply

Not This ^

reply

Cheers!

reply

It's very unlikely to be adapted for the foreseeable future for several reasons

A) It's not a massively popular book in the way LOTR and TH were, even amongst Tolkien fan's it's divisive and as such I think studios would be much more reluctant to give it the budget that would do the story and scale justice.

B) The Structure and tone of the writing wouldn't necessarily lend itself very well to blockbuster films, there's both too many stories to choose from, and too little 'flesh on the bones' as it were, there's hardly any dialogue or in depth character development, in contrast to the simple good vs evil hobbit led LOTR it's a creation myth and historical chronicle largely following a bunch of self serving arrogant immortals, virtually all of the material than connects it to LOTR and TH wasn't included in the existing films, and with no returning characters the story might be too complicated/dark/remote to sell to a mainstream audience (whereas TH films were about reclaiming a home, and LOTR about saving the world, The Silmarillion is a epic tragedy motivated largely by the greed, stupidity and arrogance of its main characters it dosen't really even end on a happy note).

C) And C, the rights aren't available, and even if they were it's unlikely they would be sold to Warner Brothers

http://nerdalicious.com.au/books/why-peter-jackson-will-never-film-the-silmarillion/

Christopher Tolkien is co-author of The Silmarillion under copyright law (not sure about the other books which he edited):

Christopher Tolkien holds the authorial copyright on The Silmarillion, not J.R.R. Tolkien. Harper Collins has confirmed with us that, under current copyright laws, the copyright will therefore not expire until 70 years after Christopher’s death, and not in 2043 when the copyright on the works of J.R.R. Tolkien will expire. (Updated 25/01/14)



http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-society/my-father-039-s-quot-eviscerated-quot-work-son-of-hobbit-scribe-j.r.r.-tolkien-finally-speaks-out/hobbit-silmarillion-lord-of-rings/c3s10299/


"I was in my father's office at Oxford. He came in and started looking for something with great anxiety. Then I realized in horror that it was The Silmarillion, and I was terrified at the thought that he would discover what I had done."

...Rather quickly, however, the film's vision, conceived in New Zealand by well-known illustrators Alan Lee and John Howe, threatened to engulf the literary work. Their iconography inspires most of the video games and merchandising. Soon, by a contagious effect, the book itself became less of a source of inspiration for the authors of fantasy than the film, and then the games inspired by the film, and so on.

The frenzy pushed the Tolkien family's lawyers to take another look at their contract, which stipulated that the Tolkien Estate must receive a percentage of the profits if the films were profitable. With the incredible box office figures, the lawyers for the family shook the dust off the contract and demanded their share of the pie from New Line, the American producer of the films, who had bought the movie rights for Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. And surprise! Cathleen Blackburn, lawyer for the Tolkien Estate in Oxford, recounts ironically, "These hugely popular films apparently did not make any profit! We were receiving statements saying that the producers did not owe the Tolkien Estate a dime."

The affair lasted from 2003 to 2006, and then things became more poisonous. The lawyers for the Tolkien Estate, those of the Tolkien Trust, and Tolkien's publisher HarperCollins demanded $150 million in damages, as well as observers' rights on the next adaptations of Tolkien's work. A lawsuit was necessary before an agreement was reached in 2009. The producers paid 7.5% of their profits to the Tolkien Estate, but the lawyer, who refuses to give a number, adds that "it is too early to say how much that will be in the future."

However, the Tolkien Estate cannot do anything about the way New Line adapts the books. In the new Hobbit movie, for example, the audience will discover characters Tolkien never put in, especially women. The same is true for the merchandise, which ranges from tea towels to boxes of nuggets, with an infinite variety of toys, stationery, t-shirts, games, etc. Not only the titles of the books themselves, but also the names of their characters have been trademarked.

"We are in the back seat," Cathleen Blackburn comments. In other words, the Estate can do little but watch the scenery, except in extreme cases-- for example, preventing the use of the name Lord of the Rings on Las Vegas slot machines, or for amusement parks. "We were able to prove that nothing in the original contract dealt with that sort of exploitation."

Action movies

"I could write a book on the idiotic requests I have received," sighs Christopher Tolkien. He is trying to protect the literary work from the three-ring circus that has developed around it. In general, the Tolkien Estate refuses almost all requests. "Normally, the executors of the estate want to promote a work as much as they can," notes Adam Tolkien, the son of Christopher and Baillie. "But we are just the opposite. We want to put the spotlight on that which is not Lord of the Rings."

The Tolkien Estate was not able to prevent an American cartoon called Lord of the Beans, but a comic-strip version of it was halted. This policy, however, has not protected the family from the reality that the work now belongs to a gigantic audience, culturally far removed from the writer who conceived it.

Invited to meet Peter Jackson, the Tolkien family preferred not to. Why? "They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully. "And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film."

This divorce has been systematically driven by the logic of Hollywood. "Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time," Christopher Tolkien observes sadly. "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away."



The rights to LOTR and TH were sold when Tolkien senior was still alive, so the Tolkien Estate/Trust had no legal say or input into the films, when you consider how different they are to the books it makes sense they wouldn't want to publicly support them i.m.o-you can't really claim to promote and protect a books literary heritage when publicly supporting a film that takes dramatic liberties with the source material. If A Silmarillion film were made presumably the rights holders would want more creative input (though I doubt they would have the resources or time to devote to such a big project) and I doubt a Hollywood studio would want to co-operate when they are used to having complete freedom on projects of this scale.

Because C.Tolkien holds the rights this might mean he'd be able to put in a clause in will asking for the rights to The Silmarillion etc are kept in trust and not sold until his copyright passes into the public domain (and as the trust deed for the Tolkien Trust/Estate isn't a public document there's always the chance that there's already a clause forbidding the sale of further rights-as C.Tolkien is executor he wouldn't be able to overturn this as far as I know) , I'm not an expert on copyright law so I'm not 100% sure, but either way it will be a very long time before the books pass into the public domain.

In his will J.R.R Tolkien gave Christopher permission to:

"publish edit alter rewrite or complete any work of mine which may be unpublished at my death or to destroy the whole or any part or parts of any such unpublished works as he in his absolute discretion may think fit and subject thereto"

He also (wisely) urges the executors to keep his copyrights in the family if at all possible.


http://sacnoths.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12/tolkiens-will.html


So i.m.o C.Tolkien is simply being cautious and protecting his father's literary interests in the way he deems more appropriate (since its publication in 1977 C.Tolkien has expressed regrets about some of his editorial decisions), if you look at Tolkien Senior's comments regarding mooted adaptions and drama as art form at large, I think it's fairly likely his viewpoints are in line with his fathers, it's not like the Tolkien family need the money or fuss anyway...

Also this old post on a Tolkien forum is interesting:

http://forums.theonering.com/viewtopic.php?p=4029495#p4029495

CT and the Tolkien Estate/family get nothing whatsoever from video games, soundtracks, merchandise, collectibles, action figures, bobbleheads, Burger King cups etc etc etc. The only rights Tolkien pere retained was to the books themselves, and a certain royalty payment on the films' gross profits* (which apparently doesn't count merchandising). Yes, book sales have increased.

''To the main point: I am in an awkward position here, because CT has shared with me his opinions of PJ's work (not TH, of course). His criticism is pages and pages long, and not complimentary. At. All. Unfortunately, I simply cannot share any of this material publicly. All I can say in very broad terms is that CT feels that all the themes that to him make the LR important are completely submerged in the movie behind frenetic motion, chases, fights and shrieking choirs (and in one major case, poor casting). But he also has some very cogent things to say about the alteration of characters and the poor rendering of particular scenes stemming from PJ's apparenlty poor understanding of the book; I find HobbitUK's comments a bit amusing because CT actually does know rather a lot about cinema, and his suggestions would have been great improvements on what PJ did. Yes, that's a seeming oxymoron- and the reason underlying the lawsuit

I think you'll find that matters have already been arranged to forestall that.
In any event, no studio would ever, ever, ever give an author final cut, and mean it* (look at the way Disney swindled P L Travers on a similar contract provision over Mary Poppins)- it would be honoured as sincerely as 'profit percentage', i.e. not at all. CT in this is not being shortsighted- he's being a realist.

Besides, I think you fail to understand the position taken by CT: that no adequate film adaptation of the LR (much less the Silmarillion) could be made, and that's not an issue of battles and monsters vs. technology; it simply doesn't translate its essence to film well at all, or at least not a film which could remotely hope for sufficient boxoffice to cover its costs- and Hollywood very much cares about Cash over Art. No studio is ever going to make a Tolkien movie as a money-losing labour of love.
All you're really arguing, near as I can tell, is that CT should just surrender to the commercial pimping and sell out like Audrey Seuss, on the grounds he and the family can't resist forever. Well, maybe that will in future decades prove to be the case but that does not mean one shouldn't nonetheless "fight the long defeat."
*And that point is, explicitly, CT's opinion

Christopher doesn't care whether book sales increase. He really doesn't. He would rather accept The Silmarillion going out of print than see it kept afloat on the back of movies like PJ's (yes, he said so)''


It's also worth noting Warner Brothers studios are currently engaged in an ongoing lawsuit with the Tolkien Estate:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/warner-bros-can-sue-tolkien-835296

reply

It really is to bad. And yes after finally reading the story it is rather depressing and much like the bible . But spin offs are normally more dark . I think getting a Kevin feige type person to look over them to hire the right directors and writers to add humor to the stories while keeping the darkness . Wouldn't surprise me if the final war of wrath movie was R.

reply

I could see that happening. Just do it as a spin off series.

Metallica and My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fan

reply

With someone like Christopher Tolkien who's only seen FOTR and TT and considering them turkeys as far as scripting went, I don't think that day will come in my life.

reply

If Christopher Tolkien hated LOTR then he must have loathed the Hobbit :-(

reply

Well he always thought his father's books were unfilmable and he himself is no really a big fan of film in general.

reply

That's not correct. He has a lot of knowledge of filmmaking in general, but was unhappy with how Peter Jackson took the liberty to stray from the book materials.

He is undoubtedly the biggest fan of his father's works and of course his expectation has got to be high.

I love LOTR and I think C. Tolkien might have expected a little too much with LOTR, but I wouldn't blamed him for hating the Hobbit. The Hobbit was mess.

reply

Well he thought FOTR was awful and he hated The Hobbit Trilogy without even taking a glimpse.

Nothing awful about the Hobbit's first 2 movies and if Jackson and/or Del Toro could have stayed with the original 2 movie concept it would have had a more successful result.

I give CT one thing though he said 'The Hobbit' is practically unfilmable as there is not much happening. And he is spot on, the best movie is made within the Imagination of each fan of the book, anything else will be dissapointing to Tolkien's readers/fans.

reply

That's not correct. He has a lot of knowledge of filmmaking in general


Can you back up this statement? CRRT doesn't go to films and doesn't have a television, so exactly how did he get a lot of knowledge about filmmaking? (In point of fact, he has never publicly claimed to have seen any of Jackson's films, and his son Adam said some time ago that his father had not seen them).

There is a film buff in the Tolkien inner circle, and that is Adam, CRRT's son, who is on the board of the Tolkien Estate and will likely inherit the reins as director when CRRT is no longer with us. Adam has made some public statements similar to what you say above, namely that his disappointment with the films related to deviations from the story and also a loss of the mystical and spiritual quality of the books. He expanded on that.

reply

I'll have to find the article again. I read it awhile back and I thought I remember CRRT actually saw the LOTR, and was unhappy with how it was made. Maybe, I got Adam and CRRT mixed up. I don't know. But, I'll see if I find the article again. It was a French article, and was translated to English. He spoke a little about the books too, and provided a little more insights on some of the characters as well.

reply

You're thinking about the article in Le Monde. The English translation doesn't capture the tone of the piece quite accurately, IMO. I read the French article, and it is less an expression of outrage than of disappointment. But, in any event, CRRT never says he himself saw the films, only that "they" bowdlerized his father's work to make an action film for young people. To say that, he need not have seen any of the films (there's never been any direct evidence he has), only that he has gotten first-hand reports, mainly from his sons I suspect. His older son Simon saw FOTR and liked it, but he was not uncritical. He said (almost exact quote here)"My Grandfather knew what Elves look like, and it's not Orlando Bloom." Simon is the only JRRT grandchild who actually knew his grandfather. They were quite close for several years and JRRT encouraged Simon in his desire to be a writer.

Simon has not commented on any of the other films from the point of view of having seen them, but perhaps he did - we don't know. We do know Adam saw the LOTR films because he has commented knowledgeably on them and on the difficulty of bringing a spiritual and mystical element to the screen. Adam is a bit of a movie buff and a fan of the films of Ingmar Bergman.

Another Tolkien with an interest in films is great-grandson Royd Tolkien. Royd took the Tolkien surname as an adult, but his mother Joan Baker was the daughter of JRRT's son Michael, so he is in direct line of descent. Royd has had some minor involvement in the film industry.

reply

Yes. It was the article in Le Monde. Thank you for clarifying what I've read. I read it in English, and I was under the impression that CRRT saw LOTR. I'm so curious of what his Elves would look like. I thought Orlando was fine physically in LOTR, though his acting was crap comparing to Viggo Mortensen.

However, in the Hobbit, he was unwatchable since they unwittingly had him flying around like super Mario.

reply

I'm so curious of what his Elves would look like. I thought Orlando was fine physically in LOTR


Maybe he meant that elves were taller. In LoTR says that Legolas was like a young tree.

reply

Orlando is like 5'11"? That's not too short. I mean, there are not too many tall, lanky actors like Lee Pace. He was perfect as the king elf, IMO. However, I wish they had kept his character as in the book.

reply

But is not too tall either. Maybe Christopher had another idea of what al elf should look like and it wasn't like PJ's version.

reply

Orlando was too short, shorter than Aragorn and he was supposed to be taller.

reply

Maybe Christopher had another idea of what an elf should look like and it wasn't like PJ's version.


It was Simon Tolkien who said that JRRT knew what an elf should look like, and it was "not Orlando Bloom." Simon didn't expand on that statement, so we don't know what precisely he thought about Bloom's appearance was inconsistent with JRRT's idea of an elf. I doubt height was it - Hugo Weaving isn't hugely tall, and Simon didn't mention him. As for Christopher, his objections appear to be more based on how the story was rendered and it's emphasis on action rather than philosophical themes, not so much appearance of actors (at least, he's never said anything publicly about any of that).

Simon's feedback is of interest, as he generally liked FOTR. But whether he correctly characterized JRRT's ideas, we will never know.

I didn't think Bloom was badly cast -- his character was different in the film from the books (book Legolas was a very joyful character, always singing and quoting poetry) but from the EE's one certainly takes away the impression Bloom tried very hard to embody an elven character, as developed by PJ of course.

reply

There's a film rights issue with the book which is why the Blue Wizards were never mentioned at all in the movies. I think the book is a bit more complicated to adapt since it covers a lot of Middle Earth history.

reply

That would be awesome, but that's not going to happen. The rights are locked up by the Tolkien estate. Also, Christopher Tolkien (JRR Tolkien's son) didn't care for the movies.

reply