Peter Jackson's The Silmarillion

[Siberian]

http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2014/1...for-72-part-movie-series-of-the-silmarillion/

 

[Droflet]

it had me going for a bit then the chuckles began. Oh my, that's clever.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

a lot of love for Tom Bombadil out there...

 

[Droflet]

Sorry, different hemisphere. Who is Tom Bombadil?

 

[Vladd67]

Sorry, different hemisphere. Who is Tom Bombadil?

Not a fan of the book then?

 

[Droflet]

Book? What f(*&$&* book? I read the Hobbit (because at the time it was cool, and chicks liked it) and LOTR later because I needed to. So REALLY guys, I'm missing the joke here.

 

[Vladd67]

Maybe you need to read LOTR again
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Bombadil
I believe Stephen is talking about the argument in the comments over the importance of Bombadil.

 

[Droflet]

Thanks Vladd. Oh him, ah, yeah.

 

[Kerrybuchanan]

I loved Tom Bombadil in the books, and regretted his loss in the films. He is such an enigmatic character.

 

[Extollager]

I was glad that Jackson's movies left out Bombadil. Perhaps only a director of genius could capture or even just suggest this enigmatic character, and I don't see Jackson as being a genius.

 

[Alex The G and T]

Without Tom Bombadil, there would have been no Tim Benzedrine. This, alone, is justification enough for Tom Bombadil.

 

[Siberian]

If something has to go Tom Bombadil would be the most obvious choice as his chapters are the least relevant to the story of the Ring. He's also practically impossible to visualize without giving some wrong impression. That said, I was surprised PJ passed on Barrow Downs considering his love for horror. It could have been Bakshi's influence. He also should have come up with the better explanation of the hobbits getting the enchanted blades than Aragorn just carrying them around for whatever reason.

 

[Overread]

I don't think they ever really made much of the enchantments of the Hobbit weapons - it was more the purity of the user than the weapon that was the story plot for the falling of the Nazghul in the film. Also didn't they find them in some ruin or something (I forget its been a long while but I seem to recall something along those lines).

Regardless I have to agree that Tom is a very hard character to bring into the cinema world; he's so easy to abuse or get wrong and mistakenly represent on the screen. He would take a very good actor and a very good director and a good script writer to pull off. I say all three because sometimes even good lines and a good role with the wrong actor just don't work (rather like how Orlando Bloom kind of only just works in Kingdom of Heaven as a leader come the end; but clearly isn't quite the right person to carry that character role).

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Then of course there's the lovely Goldberry...

 

[Venusian Broon]

If something has to go Tom Bombadil would be the most obvious choice as his chapters are the least relevant to the story of the Ring. He's also practically impossible to visualize without giving some wrong impression. That said, I was surprised PJ passed on Barrow Downs considering his love for horror. It could have been Bakshi's influence. He also should have come up with the better explanation of the hobbits getting the enchanted blades than Aragorn just carrying them around for whatever reason.

In the extended version of the film he has a scene that shows Galadriel giving Merry and Pippen their elven blades as a going away present, but that's not in the theatrical version. It makes a bit more sense that Galadriel would have such enchanted knives, but the whole thing about nicking the stuff from the Barrow was the whole 'circular' long history thing - at least that's what I took from it - that when alive those buried in the Barrow were fighting the Witch-king and had weapons specifically designed to injure him etc...

 

[Siberian]

If I remember correctly, the writers ditched the whole Arnor as a Northern Kingdom of the Dunedain in Middle-earth, along with their struggle with Angband and the Witch-king and Shire being a part of the ancient Kingdom and still under protection of the Rangers (the remnants of the Dunedain in the North). I think Butterbur mentions Aragorn as being one of the Rangers but I don't remember if it ever comes to play in any significant way. I suppose PJ decided this would be too confusing for those who haven't read the books and perhaps he was right. Still, it's a pity as hobbits receiving the blades of the long-gone people they had been the vassals of and Merry finally helping to bring that struggle to conclusion (as well as avenge the death of Theoden, his other liege) is one of the neatest plots threads in Tolkien's books.

As for the Silmarillion, I don't see how it can be filmed successfully as even relatively self-contained stories like Beren & Luthien and Turin still depend on a lot of background knowledge and everyone seems to be afraid of exposition these days. Multi-season TV shows (HBO/Amazon/Netflix style) seem like a more reasonable approach but it's still going to be hardly problematic with the multitude of cast, the great passage of time and not clear protagonists. The Silmarillion relies on the reader's imagination even more than LOTR and a lot of its mythic power can be lost with a too literal interpretation (which is why I'd rather PJ stayed away from it - he just doesn't know what subtlety is). On top of that, a lot of events are described rather briefly and even with Unfinished Tales and HOME available they'll still require some fleshing out. In other words, I don't envy anyone who'll have to tackle this mammoth task if it ever happens (it might if Christopher's successors have a different opinion on the visual media).

 

[Overread]

Silmarillion could be done, but only if its individual stories are taken out; fleshed out and made into stand-alone films in their own right. The problem there is that most are very quick snippets in the Silmarillion and could easily end up Lord of the Rings length or longer in book form if fully developed. So you'd end up with huge stories with good development; but on the otherh and you could get a mess of trying to fit too many together and shortening them all down and watering out the content.

Silmarillion was never intended to be a storybook. Heck the only one really fully intended to be an adventure story was The Hobbit; Lord of the Rings is kind of half way, it is at its core both a story and a huge step in world building; whilst Silmarillion is the pulled together bits of world building history behind both.

 

[HareBrain]

The tale of Turin Turambar could work, or Beren and Luthien (as I think someone mentioned above).

 

[farntfar]

But neither work without the context of all the others really.

3 more films to cover Farmer Giles of Ham seems more PJ's style, but I'm not sure how he'd get Legolas or Radagast (**) into it.
(**Maybe the bunny rabbits.)

 

[Siberian]

I suppose they could cover pas events mentioned in LOTR such as Sauron's war with the elves of Eregion, the fall of Numenor and the Last Alliance. Multiple huge battles and not silly hobbits should fit PJ's tastes just right.