I totally get hating on Jackson for making Faramir a weaker character than he was in the books. He really did. However, I think Peter Jackson was right to do so. By making Faramir weaker, he made the Ring stronger. One of the really REALLY difficult things to convey about the story, especially in a visual medium like film, is the power and menace that is manifest in a tiny little inanimate object. If film Faramir had acted like book Faramir then I think it would have significantly weakened the power of the Ring that they had been trying to build up. A lot of dramatic tension could have been lost right then and there. Besides they do ultimately give Faramir some redemption as he does eventually let Frodo go in a way that Boromir could not.

It's interesting so many say Faramir, I find Aragorn (despite the talent of VM) to be much further off in the adaptation. And especially Denethor.

On the other hand, Boromir, Sméagol, Gandalf, Galadriel or Théoden to be portrayed very, very well.

Rich

You probably do know this But as a linguist JRR did the work for the 'Jerusalem Bible'

His propensity for biblical language is no coincidence

gatharion said:

I would have to disagree with this a bit. There was always that whiney-schreechy sound effect when the ring was exerting its influence over someone. That was a pretty good indication that something was going on. Now, if one were deaf and watching the movie, yeah, that concept would be a significant obstacle to overcome.

Brownmantle said:

Wait, they made books based on the movies? Sweet!!! I gotta check those out!

Brownmantle said:

You seem to be implying that Jackson rescued Tolkien from obscurity. Certainly the films increased awareness of and interest in the book dramatically. But Tolkien was not an obscure writer beforehand. TLOTR sold 32 million copies in the USA (I think) from 1965 to 2001. TLOTR was voted "book of the century" in a number of major public polls before the films were released.

This is a great thread! I'm sorry I've been missing out. My two cents:

Yes, the movies are good.

Yes, the books are better.

Yes, you should all read the Silmarillion.

Budgernaut said:

Good points. But the movie really only is an adaptation. And I like how Jackson himself talks about it that way (not that it is not hard to escape the fact).

Further I think the movies are not the ultimate version. It's been a decade already, and a decade from now most of the active film-goers will not have seen the movies when they got out, so there will certainly be a time for a new version.

And if the rights get sold, I think Silmarillion could make a great series as well. I know it will be hard but with all the terrible sh*te that is being made in tons every year, why not stick to the good stuff.

i think the silmarillion would be easier to make into a movie- there isnt as much personal info and background, so the director has more freedom. for instance hundreds of years pass, entire wars and battles are fought, all within a few pages or a chapter. this means that as long as the director uses the names, lore and so on, they have the freedom to expand on these battles without being unfaithful to the book. this must be an easier situation that the trilogy

lleimmoen said:

I don't know about this. They seem to get replayed a lot, so people would have seen them anyway, and may not be all that excited to get another version relatively soon. It also would be a massive undertaking, very expensive to do, as it would have to at least be competitive with the visuals and atmosphere of Jackson"s films.

In this thread, I have read negative references towards Christopher Tolkien, as in he is a bad influence. Anyone care to illuminate this for a newb? Thanks.

dont say anything in case he's watching this thread hahaahahahahahahahhahaah

So essentially, he is Sauron

richsabre said:

I would be glad if The Silmarillion is finally made into a TV Series. I think it would produce a better result, due to the huge time period it includes, and the lot of events that happens in the First Age, that it could be produced into more than 11 hours of visual resources.

But I don't think we will get this anyway.

Greetings.

Titan said:

I said ten years from now. But maybe not that early. We shall (hopefully) see.

And yes, I really think Silmarillion is good and ready for adaptation. One just needs to pick up the good threads of storyline. It is a shame JRRT hadn't had enough time to pull it more together.

As for his son, I think he did well with the likes of Children of Húrin. That book seems almost finished. And I wonder whether he shall make the other two big stories off the Silmarillion, I think he mentioned he was still working on Beren and Lúthien and the Fall of Gondolin (and the subsequent Voyage of Earendil and the War of Wrath I believe).

Ranger of the Force said:

Nice!

lleimmoen said:

****. It's been a decade… Is it time to do a "reboot" and remake the movies already??? Hell, Spider-Man is already getting a reboot… why can't we get something with more substance than a whiny guy in leotards being remade already?!?!

… (said somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Although more of a DC fan, I do enjoy Marvel's big-screen success. Mostly. The X-men series really went downhill fast…)

Ranger of the Force said:

Guilty as charged… lol. Actually, CT himself has lamented the fact that he did The Silmarillion a great injustice by editing it initially the way he did. Really made it hard for anyone to want to "buy in" to the rest of JRRT's material. As Rich has pointed out (possibly in another thread), reading through it is much more akin to reading through the Bible (not that I'm anti-religious… lol). It's very weighty material, just VERY difficult to attempt to read as a "narrative". It really should be read in small sections and digested.

As someone who has been critical of Christopher at times, let me also say that he may have completely redeemed himself with the History of Middle-Earth series… It's still a lot of material to get through (12 volumes), and still heavily-laden with foot-notes and appendices, etc. But WELL worth the read, and much more reader-friendly. You can blow through much of the notes and such and still read it in a fairly narrative manner (but you'd miss a lot of insight into JRRT's thoughts to do so…). Actually, since my favorite story from all of Middle-Earth is the tragedy of Hurin and his sons, The Children of Hurin, in addition to Unfinished Tales, are possibly some of my favorite books from Christopher's editing.

Thanks for the insight. I was curious as to what role he played, and it seems as some take issue with his editing his father's work for good or ill. Does that about sum it up?

and protecting the rights to the silmarillion like it were smaugs treasure

benhanses said:

Exactly my points. With the exception of the new Batman movies which I find really well done, there is a pile of sh*te full of "super-heroes" and one must be wondering why can't we get something nice instead…

benhanses said:

Ben is correct (as usual). The Children of Hurin is an especially complete and well done peice of work. Without C.T. all the "backstory," outside of the Return of the King Appendex, would have been lost. He is a remarkable tallent and extreemly dedicated scholor. I'd shake his hand and ask for a sig. given the chance.

I just wanted to pop on and say that I just finished rereading Fellowship and some of the stuff from the movies was really spot on. As fans we can get very nitpicky about missing elements or stuff that's different from how we envisioned it, but given the nature of Hollywood and even just the conceits of film making, it's fairly remarkable that Jackson got as much "right" as he did.

The scene where Boromir tries to take the ring, for instance. They play out very similar in the book and in the movie and I think Sean Bean simply nailed the shifting emotions displayed by Boromir there.

Also, I just have to say, I don't know how many times I've watched or read Gandalf's confrontation with the Balrog on the Bridge of Khazad Dum, but every time, either in print or on film, I get goosebumps.

Remake the LotR movies? I wouldn't count on that for at LEAST twenty to thirty more years. They were a massive undertaking and in many people's minds, the Jackson films were pretty definitive. A status that is only being cemented by the release of the Hobbit.

A Silmirilion TV show or movie(s)? I'd be bowled over if that EVER happened. For one, it doesn't have the name recognition that Hollywood likes, but also there just isn't enough cohesive story there. Someone else mentioned that as a selling point, but if you're having to make so much up whole cloth, then why even bother dealing with complexities of wrangling with the copyright issues? Plus, making engaging characters and linear plots for something that is supposed to span for hundreds of years, is going to be a more daunting challenge than most Hollywood screenwriters are likely to tackle.

IMO, Hollywood has never gotten a solid grasp on something as comperatively simple as the stories of King Arthur; I can't imagine the Silmirilion faring well.

Pericles said:

A storyteller needs more tools in his box than just sound effects.

I'm not even sure what you're suggesting here…that Jackson just shouldn't have employed said "whiney-schreechy" sound with Faramir? That wouldn't make much sense within the logic of the movie.

Either there is an opportunity for Faramir to get corrupted by the Ring or there is not. If there is no opportunity then there is pretty much no point to him meeting Frodo at all. If there is, but Faramir can just hand wave it away, then the ring come across as easily dismissible which then makes the struggle of all the other characters who have had to resist the ring seem really odd.

Even Galadriel they had to show being momentarily tempted to take the Ring. Having Faramir brush it off when neither his brother nor the elf-queen could would have been really odd and felt inconsistent in terms of the much-vaunted lure of the Ring. Gollum doesn't follow Frodo all across Middle-Earth just because he thought the Ring matched his ratty loincloth.

gatharion said:

I think they could have done with Faramir what they did with Aragorn. When confronted with the ring, Faramir could have simply kept glancing back at the ring. Instead of taking the Hobbits to Osgiliath, he could have led them through the forest, the whole time sneaking glances at Frodo. The audience members that don't know Faramir's character would suspect treachery, and those who are familiar would see that the ring is drawing him in without him ever giving in to it. I think a simple thing like making sure he keeps looking back to Frodo or the ring would effectively portray the power of the ring without destroying Faramir's character.