If the Children of Húrin was filmed...

[Thinlómien]

We've all been so enthusiastic for the last months, because the book called Children of Húrin (consisting from J.R.R. Tolkien's notes and published things, edited by Christopher Tolkien - more on this thread) is to be published soon.

I read the Metro newspaper this morning. What caught my interest was a little article about CoH and this little statement by Chris Crawshaw, the chairman of the Tolkien Society: "It (The Children Of Hurin) would probably make a very good movie, if anyone can secure the film rights."

This made me wonder what kind of movie the story would make. I know it'll be easier to speculate once we have the book in our hands, but I think we can still discuss some things here now already. What (if something) things could be left out? What scenes would you definitely want to see? Who should play the main roles? Who should direct it? And so on... I'm interested to hear your opinions about these things.

[The Sixth Wizard]

I'm sure it would make a great movie, but we should probably do the Hobbit before we move on to something as big as CoH. The Hobbit though might not make such a great movie, because it was basically written for younger readers...

As for obtaining the film rights, that's about as probable as George Lucas not using any CGI .

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I think CoH, as a movie, basically, from what we know of the story, would very easily fall into the "normal story which is in every second movie". One main hero, who is sort of a rebel, ill fate, troubles with several women, totally wicked dangerous enemy, negatively portrayed ally-characters here and there, and tragic end, eee, if I didn't know the original story and saw a film, I'd probably kick to the television and walk away. It wouldn't be such a typical movie of our age (the typical is that the hero survives), but still... Which brings me to, here you can see that Tolkien's story must really be a masterwork, because the original plot is, if I exaggerate it, really quite "ordinary".

[Thinlómien]

Actually I slightly disagree with you, Legate. I think marrying one's sister and her becoming pregnant is not the kind of everyday-movie stuff. And even though the story wouldn't be that magnifiently portrayed, if the visual things would be well handled, it might still be worth the movie ticket. *thinks about a well-done movie-Glaurung and shivers*

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Hmm... yes, you are right. But I wanted to say something like if I didn't know it is from Tolkien, I'd probably not bother to go to see it if it came to cinemas. I don't go very often to cinemas, though, but still, if it sounded like a really a good movie, I'd go. But this, probably not.

Of course, not speaking of the visual effects. But this, on the other hand, I think is not important for a Tolkien fan. Or at least I feel it like that.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

What would worry me is that the story of Turin is so at odds with the typical fantasy action blockbuster. Essentially it's about a man who wants to be a hero and champion of good, but who ends up destroying almost everything he touches. He kills his most loyal friend, gets his sister pregnant and helps to bring about the destruction of one of the chief Noldorin cities. Nearly everyone who follows him or helps him ends up dead, as do most of the people he tries to protect; and much of it is due to his headstrong and undisciplined pride, which is a virtue in action films. A film would probably feel it needed to make him more conventionally heroic, give him some more victories and mitigate his worst mistakes. The incest between Turin and Nienor would almost certainly be dropped to keep the age rating down. Finduilas would become the obvious replacement, so she would have to be kept alive at least long enough to take Nienor's place in Brethil; poor old Mim would be simplified into the archetypal treacherous comrade. Don't even get me started on what would happen to the dialogue.

Copyright expires eventually, so just make the most of what will probably be a great book. Perhaps by the time someone can legally film it the film industry will have grown up enough to do it justice. Maybe there'll even be support for a British production by then; a creative response from Tolkien's home country, although I doubt it. In any case I don't think I could bear to see Tolkien's most tragic hero turned into a marketing vehicle for action figures and console games. Beleg Strongbow Happy Meals, anyone? Spare me.

[Mithalwen]

I cannot imaginae any movie dragon as scary as the Glaurung that walks my imagination. Anything CGI is so deeply unfrightening to me - how much more effective is the horror of films such as The Others or the Blair Witch Project where you see just about nothing....

Whiole I share a lot of Squatter's fears, I can imagine a few "art house" directors who might do a very good job but the chances of them getting the chance int he face of Studios wanting to cash in on the lucrative action film market...

Of course it would make a wonderful Opera ... a genre which would be unlikely to baulk at incest or nudity.

[Lalaith]

Somebody like Derek Jarman could have made a very interesting version...or the guy who made Pan's Labyrinth.

[davem]

Of course the movie rights lie with the Estate & there's no reason to believe they will put them up for sale any time for soon. CT has stated that LotR was unsuitable for (visual) dramatisation & there's no reason to believe he feels differently about CoH. Adam Tolkien in a recent interview seemed to be less opposed to the possibility & it seems Adam will take over the CT 'role' when he passes on. So, its possible the rights will become available - & then we'll be back to the whole 'Cash or Kudos' situation.

Not as simple as it seems.... The family may prefer 'Kudos', but they could make a lot of money from selling the movie rights & as the rights are held by the Estate, which is a charity, they could do a lot of good by selling to a big studio & using the money to help good causes.

Of course, if they were prepared to sell the CoH movie rights one assumes they would be prepared to sell the rights to all Tolkien's works.

The whole situation is very unusual these days, where the movie rights are sold along with the book rights as a matter of course. It seems that the very fact that the rights have not been sold yet is a deliberate choice on the part of the Estate - they must have been asked by the publishers (not to mention hassled by studios who would kill to get their hands on the new work).

I agree with Lalaith that the director of Pan's Labyrinth would make a very impressive job. However, I fear that the studios would turn out something along the lines of 300 Hollywood seems more comfortable with presenting (& justifying) extreme violence (Glauring would make it) than 'difficult' themes (as Squatter states a 'hero' could not commit suicide, let alone incest - the 'moral majority' would have apoplexy).

Studio execs will know nothing of the story than that it is a 'new' novel from the guy who wrote LotR & they'll pay whatever for the rights without caring to find out. Once they got the rights they'd immediatley start excising anything that would upset the MM - one only has to look at the way Pullman's HDM has had negative references to 'God' removed. The rights to HDM were bought because the book was popular, the contents are basically irrelevant to the studios because movies cost so much to make that they want as much publicity as possible - buy a popular book to adapt & you've already got a ready audience. Once they're in the cinema you can feed them something safe & simple..

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Legate

Of course, not speaking of the visual effects. But this, on the other hand, I think is not important for a Tolkien fan. Or at least I feel it like that.

Well not the most important thing, certainly, but if I saw a very beautiful Beleriand (in the trailers etc) and it looked like I had imagined it, I think I'd still go to see the film, even if I knew the story would be spoiled. (After all, I could speak bad about the movie with a good reason afterwards... )

Squatter, I think you're right but I hope you aren't. The scenario you show us is certainly quite pessimistic. I wouldn't like to see that kind of Narn i Hin Húrin. The incest and the suicide are very important for the plot and they make the story so tragic. Also, as you said, if everything was simplified in that blockbuster way, the result would be quite disastrous mass action film (like Legate already pointed out).

[Sauron the White]

If and when a film is made I predict that it will quickly divide followers and readers of Middle-earth into the same two camps that formed over the LOTR films. It is obvious to me that there are many things in COH that are simply death to a good money making successful film. The incest angle plus the complete downer of a story simply is not what epic fantasy films are made about. I would guess that a filmmaker would play that down - or eliminate it altogether. The epic heroic aspects would be emhpasized. You then get what may make for a better and more marketable film (see boxofficemojo.com for grosses of LOTR films) but incur the wrath, anger and ire of the purist community. And thus the entire thing continues on and on an on.

It would be very nice if people would accept that a book and a film are different. What makes for a great book does not necessarily make for a great film. And vice versa.

CT can take the position that he wants Middle-earth to be the books and not what is seen on the big screen. It is easy to take that position when you made millions of dollars out of increased revenue from the actual books sale due to film tie-ins including CT approved covers with film photographs. Yes, CT and the Estate did not join in film profits. But lets not fool ourselves that they did not profit greatly from the films spurring greatly increased book sales. He has been able to have his cake and eat it too. I wonder if the subsequent heads of the Estate can afford to do likewise without a revenue stream like CT has enjoyed over the last five years thanks to the LOTR films.

[Mithalwen]

And it is easy to slate Christopher Tolkien... but in fact the incidental revenue from the LOTR films has been given to charity through the Tolkien trust.

There is a link to the audited accounts elsewhere on the site.

[Sauron the White]

Mithalwen - thank you for that information. I went to the Tolkien Estate official webpage and found nothing. Could you please post a link to this info or at least identify where I could find it? Thank you.

[Kuruharan]

To me at least, this seems exactly like the sort of story that the jaded and cynical critics would slobber and drool all over..of course, favorable critical reviews do not a big box office debut make.

I'm not so sure why everyone thinks that this movie wouldn't be made or that the difficult things wouldn't be included from a content standpoint. The only real objection I see to keeping it true to the story would be the incest as I don't think that the suicide would be a particular stumbling block. It would be a controversial movie, but I don't think that in and of itself would keep it from being made. It might not do as well at the box office as LOTR.

Of course, moviemakers often change the story for no good reason anyway, so...

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Mithalwen - thank you for that information. I went to the Tolkien Estate official webpage and found nothing. Could you please post a link to this info or at least identify where I could find it? Thank you.

I have just bumped the relevant thread up the Barrow downs section -Hmm did you know that. There is a link to the charities commission website which has the accounts. The Trust is not exactly the same as the estate though it holds the copyright of various works. The trust has not publicised its donations that I know of. The majority of the film money came through a couple of years ago if you look at the accounts.

[Sauron the White]

MIthalwen - thank you for that link.
According to the statement you linked to, here are some numbers

April 1999 - April 200
Income 137,323 British pounds
that would be pre-film

April 2003 - April 2004
Income 5,494,330 British pounds
that would be at the height of the film

April 2005 - April 2006
Income 1,166,199 British pounds
that would be post-film

It is my understanding that a British pound is about equal to $2 US dollars.

So what we have here is income increasing from a pre-film level of less than $400,000.00 US dollars to an income level of nearly $11 million US dollars. That is astounding and represents an increase of some fortyfold.

Since the film has left the theaters, the revenue stream is still eight times greater than it was pre-film.

I do not want to misunderstand or misrepresent these numbers. If I am wrong or am reading this incorrectly please correct me.

Do these numbers represent ALL and TOTAL income to the Tolkien Estate from the revenues of books or other royalties due to them during the film period?

[Mithalwen]

You are misrepresenting the income since there was a £2million bequest in the £5million year which I imagine from the timing to be the estate of Father John Tolkien.

Whether it is all the income is not specified explicitly but it is implied in the notes to the accounts it does say that the increase (other than the legacy) was due to incidental revenue from the films. while the film rights had been long gone and the estate had no control over them (one of the reasons they kept their distance), they would have been entitled to some royalties when the books were quoted in "film companion" books etc.

For myself when various works were reprinted at the time of the films I bought them .. but it was not becuse of the films influence though I saw them ... I had waited twenty years to get my hands on a copy of The road goes ever on....

[Sauron the White]

Mithalwen - thank you for that explaination. So if we remove the money from the bequest, that still leave some 3 million pounds or 6 million US dollars in increased revenues from pre-film years. And then there is also the continued level of higher sales and revenues from pre-film years. Both figures are significant and substantial.

These funds do NOT represent all the money paid to the Tolkien Estate from book royalties do they? Perhaps I am not again reading this correctly and there are other explainations, but it seems that the films - regardless of how they were accepted by CT and family - did put a great deal of additional revenues into the pockets of CT, the Estate, their Trust and other family members.

That was my point in the previous post.

We are led to believe that CT does not approve of the movies. One can even say that CT would rather the films had never been made and the only version we have of Middle-earth would be the one his father constructed in his books. That is fine. My point was simply that it is an interesting stance for Christoper to adopt since he has benefitted significantly from the films themselves.

The phrase "having your cake and eating it too" applies here. Of course, once you eat your cake, you can no longer have it for it is gone. That is the irony of the situation. CT has found a way to have his cake (spurn the films and their vision of his fathers Middle-earth) and eat it at the same time (enjoy the revenues from vastly increased book sales due to the films popularity). No small accomplishment.

The webpage of the Tolkien Estate says they have no plans to sell film or other rights to COH. I take them at their word.

[davem]

Just a note - I don't think CT 'spurned' the movies. Its more that he felt they could not adequately present his father's creation. There is a lot of nonsense going around that CT was 'anti' the movies - even angry about them. I think if he was really 'anti' the movies then Alan Lee would not have been asked to produce the paintings for CoH.

As to the monetary side & who gets how much of what, its all beyond me, being, as I am, a bear of very little brain, but the fact that the family did not have to do anything but live a very comfortable life on the proceedings of their father's work, I think what they have done in setting up the Trust deserves nothing but respect.

Of course the Estate (& therefore the Trust) benefitted greatly from the revenue generated by the movies, but what would one expect them to do - turn it down? As I said, neither CT nor any other member of the family has made any disparaging or negative comments about the movies - CT merely expressed his personal feelings about the inadequacy of the medium to do justice to his father's vision. The movies were made & as a result the Estate gained the means to do some good work. If there's a problem there its hidden from me....

[Sauron the White]

So there is no validity to the story that after Royd Tolkien appeared as a Gondorian ranger in the film he was shut out of Estate matters by his father who was angry at him?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

So there is no validity to the story that after Royd Tolkien appeared as a Gondorian ranger in the film he was shut out of Estate matters by his father who was angry at him?

None. Royd was not a member of the Estate (if I can put it that way, & Royd was Tolkien's great grandson, not Christopher's son. The 'story' that was going around was that Christopher had refused to have anything to do with his son Simon after Simon expressed approval of the movies & as far as I'm aware Royd was Michael's grandson. Family tree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien...#Simon_Tolkien. There is a statement by CT released via his lawyers here http://tolkiennews.net/article.php?s...61005151054723 the essential part being

# There was no dispute between Christopher Tolkien and his son, Simon Tolkien, as a result of Simon Tolkien going to see the first Lord of the Rings film.
# Simon Tolkien was never on the Board of any Tolkien company and was not 'removed' from any such position by Christopher Tolkien.
# Nor has Christopher Tolkien 'disowned' Simon Tolkien.

[Sauron the White]

Thank you for clarifying that. Although I never did claim that Royd was Christopher's son - only that "his father" did not like his film appearance. His father, of course being one of the Tolkien Estate members. But your valuable link cleared that up for me.

If all this is true, I wonder how all these nasty stories get started leading folks like me to believe that the Tolkien Estate - and Christoper in particular - did not like or approve of the movies? I could have sworn than I have read this many times in many places over the last few years. I certainly cannot remember ever seeing the opposite - that Christopher or any other member of the Estate was thankful for the films, was thankful for the additional revenue they produced for them, or at the least had even enjoyed them.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

If all this is true, I wonder how all these nasty stories get started leading folks like me to believe that the Tolkien Estate - and Christoper in particular - did not like or approve of the movies? I could have sworn than I have read this many times in many places over the last few years. I certainly cannot remember ever seeing the opposite - that Christopher or any other member of the Estate was thankful for the films, was thankful for the additional revenue they produced for them, or at the least had even enjoyed them.

I've never seen any adverse comments by any family member re the movies - apart from the usual unsubstantiated hearsay - what have you seen? I don't see why Christopher or any other family member should have to express approval - or say anything about anything at all. They aren't public figures. Maybe some of them saw the movies & really enjoyed them - but they aren't film critics either. I'm not being antagonistic here, but why would they feel any need to comment? They have used the profits to support good causes - & they don't discuss those either.

[Sauron the White]

Is CT a public figure? Probably all in the definition of the term.

from davem

They have used the profits to support good causes - & they don't discuss those either.

Yes they have used profits for good purposes and my hat is off to them. They have helped many good and worth causes. I also see where some of those charitable contributions support Tolkien related research and papers. Fine. But lets make that distinction when we hand out the praise.

I ask again, if anyone knows -- were ALL film profits used in this manner or do the charity contributions represent a PARTIAL amount of the profits from increased royalty revenue as a result of the films popularity?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

I ask again, if anyone knows -- were ALL film profits used in this manner or do the charity contributions represent a PARTIAL amount of the profits from increased royalty revenue as a result of the films popularity?

Well, you can email the Estate via their web site & ask them if its important - http://www.tolkienestate.com/. Personally I prefer not to enter into questions of personal finances. It may be that all the profits went straight into the Trust's coffers or it may be that most went into the family's secret off-shore bank account to be used in their nefarious plan to genetically engineer an army of killer Hobbit clones to take over the world.

[Sauron the White]

davem --- since I am new here and do not have the information that may have been given in many previous discussions I simply am trying to get my facts straight. People here know so much more than I could ever hope to and I was trying to learn.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

davem --- since I am new here and do not have the information that may have been given in many previous discussions I simply am trying to get my facts straight. People here know so much more than I could ever hope to and I was trying to learn.

I understand, & a few of us have tried to answer your questions. But I don't think anyone except members of the family know what has happened to the movie profits, other than they've gone to those who deserve them & that in the main they are a very decent bunch. Why is it so important to know who's got what & what they've done with it?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

The financial concerns of the Tolkien family and Estate are not our concerns here on the Barrow-Downs. We have not discussed them in detail in the past, since we have no inside information, so you haven't missed anything, Sauron. Nor do we have any right at all to judge private persons on what they do with their private revenue. Nothing more than hearsay, rumours and other unfounded speculations can be contributed, so let's stop talking about this and get back to the main issue of the thread - discussing possibilities for filming the CoH. Thank you!

[Sauron the White]

A serious question regarding possible filming of CHILDREN OF HURIN directed at a special audience. I ask this of people who are the most critical of the LOTR films, For lack of a better word - the Purists - those who seem to want a nearly exact page by page translation of the book to the screen... or at least that is how it has sometimes appeared over the last few years.

What would make a successful HURIN film for you?

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

As I said above, it's very premature to be talking about a film version of a book none of us has even had a chance to read yet. There's no guarantee that the Tolkien Estate will ever sell the film rights, which means that a film might not be forthcoming for several decades. If this were the case, I wouldn't shed any tears.

That being said, if you want a purist view, then I suppose mine is it. I don't hate the Jackson films, but I don't like them very much either.

What would make an ideal film version of The Children of Hurin for me? Well, for a start it would have to refrain from making any of the changes I pointed out above. That's the sine qua non of making me happy with the film: keep the plot and characters the same. In other words, if the author takes risks and defies convention, then the film-makers must do that too. Characters must have the same personalities and motivations that they do in the original story, doing the same things for the same reasons, regardless of what the producer may think the audience wants. Most importantly, since space is at a premium it should never contain completely invented scenes, particularly if others have been dropped from the original story due to space constraints.

Nothing wastes time without moving the story along more than a battle scene. There are two major battles in The Children of Hurin: the Nirnaeth Arnoediad and the Fall of Nargothrond, but neither has to be dwelt on too much. The respective key scenes are Hurin's rearguard against Morgoth's forces and his subsequent capture by orcs, and Turin's encounter with Glaurung. Ideally for the sake of run-time the battles should be reduced as nearly as possible to those two pivotal scenes, with the time saved being devoted to the important character pieces between, for example, Hurin and Morgoth, Turin and Morwen, etc. and the key death of Lalaith. A truly great film version would not rely on CGI battles to make an impact. Perhaps it would even give more space to the development of Turin's relationship with Finduilas; certainly it would spend time and creative energy on portraying Turin's growing romantic love for Nienor. Much of the story's tragedy hinges on the fact that those two characters love each other as husband and wife without realising that they are brother and sister.

But a great film adaptation would have more to learn from Peter Jackson than what to avoid. Jackson's films are visually stunning, with famous Tolkien artists being consulted on costume and set design. This was definitely a good move, and would be vital for such important items as the Dragon-Helm and Gurthang; also the engagement of theatrically trained actors would be essential due to the operatic intensity of the story. Anyone who relies on playing themselves repeatedly should be avoided in favour of character actors, even at the expense of an easily recognisable cast. A great film would not be afraid to introduce talented unknowns. Overall, the Jackson films were well cast.

Since I've mentioned dialogue above I'll add the thing that I consider even more important than casting the right people: use Tolkien's dialogue. Whenever people try to re-write his characters' words they start to sound like every other film character you've ever heard. A great film would make Tolkien's words work instead of just re-casting them in a modern idiom.

Basically, then, my ideal film would have at its core an assumption: the assumption that Tolkien can sell on his own terms without concessions to received film-making wisdom. It would not be afraid to take risks in order to portray faithfully the spirit of his story, no matter how unlikely it might be to play well to a cinema audience. It would be emotionally and intellectually articulate and it would have the voice that Tolkien gave it, not the voice of movie consensus. It would be imaginative and artistic in its visual techniques, employ a less-is-more approach to special effects, and would be based on a screenplay which followed the book as closely as run-times allowed.

Such a film would never be made. I would rather see the budget cut to the bone and lose all the gorgeous visuals if I could hear a talented actor speaking Turin's words as Tolkien wrote them, but gorgeous visuals sell films and poetic language doesn't. I'm pretty sure that incest and punished hubris don't sell films either, so I shan't be disappointed if someone films this story to be a Christmas blockbuster. 'Cash or kudos?' was the question Tolkien asked of a film adaptation. Realistically, cash wins nine times out of ten, but if someone were to make The Children of Hurin into a film, it would be wonderful if that were the one time when kudos won the argument.

[Sauron the White]

That is a very well thought out answer to my question. Thank you Squatter of AR. And allow me a follow-up.

It is a common device in films to combine two characters into one or combine two events into one to move things along and not repeat elements of the same scene twice. Do you object to doing that?

And regarding this

Most importantly, since space is at a premium it should never contain completely invented scenes, particularly if others have been dropped from the original story due to space constraints.

In TTT, Jackson had the Elves come to Helms Deep. Of course, this was a deviation from the book. One reason given was that Jackson did not have the time to show actual book-based battles that the Elven Warriors were engaged in so he "moved them" to the battle he was focusing on. Many viewers joined me in rating that innovation as a very positive one.

Is that the type of thing you would seriously object to?

[Lalaith]

What I would fear most, in a Hollywood version of the Narn, is the dreaded modern curse of emotional incontinence.
Narn is a very buttoned-up, sparse tragedy. It is Morwen saying nothing but scratching at the doorpost til her fingers bleed when the child Turin leaves for Doriath. It is Hurin and Morwen, at the end of it all, after decades apart, not falling into each other's arms but sitting in silence, mourning the terrible fates of their children.
There are few directors these days with enough restraint and self-control to carry off this kind of strong, silent tragedy. Most would be unable to resist injecting a huge dose of sentimental emoting and twaddle. Peter Jackson could not be trusted with it. The Fellowship reunion bed scene springs to mind. *shudder*

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

It is a common device in films to combine two characters into one or combine two events into one to move things along and not repeat elements of the same scene twice. Do you object to doing that?

I don't think this is something about which you can make general pronouncements. For example, you could combine the characters of Gethron and Grithnir from the Narn i Hîn Húrin without doing much harm to the story, but combining Finduilas and Níenor would be catastrophic. I think that in general this is to be avoided unless two criteria are met: firstly that the two characters should be dramatically indistinguishable and secondly that combining them should save a significant amount of screen time. In general, I think that big-budget films tend to overdo this compression, in my opinion underestimating the intelligence and sophistication of their audience more often than not.

In the case of the story of Húrin's family a film-maker would have the advantage of a relatively small cast of strong, well-defined characters. The central family grouping of Húrin, Morwen Eledhwen, Túrin, Níenor and Lalaith, then a court group including Thingol and Saeros; the Outlaws, which essentially revolve around the central pairing of Túrin and Beleg, the last of the Petty-dwarves in the persons of Mîm and his sons, another court group at Nargothrond and the Brethil group, particularly Brandir and Dorlas. For antagonists you have Morgoth, Glaurung and Gothmog. Everyone else is essentially a supporting rôle.

In TTT, Jackson had the Elves come to Helms Deep. Of course, this was a deviation from the book. One reason given was that Jackson did not have the time to show actual book-based battles that the Elven Warriors were engaged in so he "moved them" to the battle he was focusing on. Many viewers joined me in rating that innovation as a very positive one.

I think that this is another instance where things can't be decided en bloc. Each scene has to be considered on its individual merits, but this sort of thing has to be avoided if in any way possible. Jackson's scene takes me off into LR film territory, which I don't like to discuss because of all the cans of worms it opens. I felt that scene, while it worked dramatically, raised serious questions about the narrative situation. The Rohirrim don't really trust Elves; they have no contact with any of the Eldar, and so the arrival of force from Lothlórien, which they regard as a place of sorcery, is very unlikely to be well-received in the fictional world as written. There's also the fact that the Elven battles aren't essential. The Elves are in decline and withdrawing from Middle-earth, so it's right that they shouldn't play much of a part in its battles. Tolkien relegated them to the Appendices for a reason: that aspect of the War of the Ring was tangential to the story he was telling. To use an analogy from a real-life war, it would be like putting Russian troops at Omaha Beach just because they were fighting the same enemy.

Anyway, that's another subject entirely. I don't usually talk about the LR films, because my opinions aren't terribly popular. Perhaps the foregoing comments make it clear why I don't tend to watch films made from books I like.

[EDIT]: I agree entirely with Lalaith's comments about emotional incontinence in contemporary films.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

What I would fear most, in a Hollywood version of the Narn, is the dreaded modern curse of emotional incontinence.
Narn is a very buttoned-up, sparse tragedy. It is Morwen saying nothing but scratching at the doorpost til her fingers bleed when the child Turin leaves for Doriath. It is Hurin and Morwen, at the end of it all, after decades apart, not falling into each other's arms but sitting in silence, mourning the terrible fates of their children.

Can't help wondering if this is because so many modern novels are written as 'first draft screenplays' - the writer always seems to have in the forefront of his/her mind the movie version. Hence, this 'emotional incontinence' is a problem with many modern novels as well as movies. The two seem to feed off each other. Certainly if Tolkien had had a movie adaptation in mind when he wrote CoH he may have felt constrained by the necessities of that medium.

I wonder if that is why so much modern fantasy is increasingly bland & authors afraid of taking risks? Fantasy movies are now big business, & adaptations are assumed to be automatic. Hence this thread perhaps - the assumption behind it is that a movie should be made, so let's start planning it now!! I'm sure that many studios also assumed that the rights would be up for sale & have taken the clear statement on the Estate website that there are no plans to sell the film rights as either the result of CT being an old fogey still living in the dark ages, or a shrewd customer playing hard ball to get the best deal. The idea that a writer (or editor) might have written/produced a novel rather than a FDS (first draft screenplay), & intended for people to read it rather than watch it in the cinema seems to be an odd one to many people.

It strikes me that it is this attitude that is the problem, & would be the reason for any movie version being savagely bowdlerised - movie studios do not think in terms of producing art, but rather of making money. The novel is indeed merely a FDS & is there to be 'developed' into the 'final' stage which is the shooting script. The novel is not an art form in its own right but a source of raw material, waiting to be shaped into the 'real' thing. Thus, they do not think in terms of respecting the artist's vision, because that 'vision' to their mind is not in its final, proper, form - only when it becomes a shooting script is the process complete.

So, the incest, the dual suicide, the bleak, not to say often depressing, mood of the tale are not, to the studio executive's mind, essentials of the story (nor is the language) - they are the starting points with which they begin. We saw this attitude repeatedly in the LotR movies, with the movie makers constant repetion throughout the DVD commentaries that ''X' would not have worked in a movie.', or ''Y' was not really convincing to us, so we had to change it to 'Z'.'

Its not so much a case of 'disresect' but rather of not understanding what a novel is, that it is a thing in its own right, not the source for something else. The problem is this assumption that a novel exists to be made into a movie & that the movie is the ultimate form the story should take - even if what actually survives of the original story is the barest bones. What is needed is a change of attitude - an assumption that novels will not be made into movies, & that when one is found that can be adapted that is the exception rather than the rule. Yet, one cannot put all the blame on the studios - the writers, as I stated, are complicit in this - too many write novels with an eye on the movie rights.

[Lalwendë]

To be fair, I think many writers, especially those who have not attained huge financial success, sell on film rights because they simply would like some more money! The problem emerges when a film is likely to be seen by 'family' audiences so film-makers believe they must tone down any contentious elements (currently I'm a bit scared of what might happen to Northern Lights...) or when a novel has a great story but is much more than a simple story when on the page and thus doesn't translate well to film - I'm thinking of the unholy mess they made of Possession here.

Personally I really don't care to see a film of CoH made anytime soon - far better to let the book lie for a while and enter the public consciousness that way. They made films of Harry Potter too soon, and there simply wasn't enough time for mental images of Harry, Hermione etc to form in readers' minds, so Harry will forever be Daniel Radcliffe now. LotR benefitted from not being filmed for a long time - my mental images of most characters are still intact and not spoiled by the films due to the amount of time they existed only within my own mind - e.g. Elrond still has grey hair and a beard to me.

It's the fault of "I want it now!" modern culture - even bands have no time to grow and develop, so you get the very modern (and disappointing) problem of 'dodgy second albums' all the time, and bands last about a year or two before splitting up.

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

If all this is true, I wonder how all these nasty stories get started leading folks like me to believe that the Tolkien Estate - and Christoper in particular - did not like or approve of the movies? I could have sworn than I have read this many times in many places over the last few years. I certainly cannot remember ever seeing the opposite - that Christopher or any other member of the Estate was thankful for the films, was thankful for the additional revenue they produced for them, or at the least had even enjoyed them.

Now going back to this interesting question, I think that the reason there are so many gripes directed towards the Tolkien estate is simple jealousy! The estate keep a tight reign on archives, and on who can look at them and what they can do with them. That's perfectly acceptable to my mind as they are only trying to quality control what is put out in Tolkien's name, and there already enough unauthorised crackpot texts/critiques/biographies out there.

They also manage to hold back a potential flood of thoroughly non-canonical writings. Fan fic is great, and I've played a few RPGs myself, but I will never accept them as being from Tolkien's own mind because they obviously are not; I can accept editing from Christopher as he knew his father better than anyone could have done, but fan fic is a whole different kettle of fish. Star Wars fans are always falling out due to the spin-off novels which are stuffed with conflicting info - can you imagine how bad it would be if Tolkien fans had to put up with that?! It's bad enough dealing with Tolkien's contradictory letters!

The estate also have to hold back the flood of us 'fans' a little as we can admittedly be pretty obsessive! And no doubt the family remember the horrors Tolkien suffered of being rung up in the middle of the night by over-keen fans!

They also have a right to earn some money from the estate - Tolkien worked incredibly hard to keep his family on a relatively low wage and struggled with bills so it's nice that he left them something to help them out. They are not all rich through the legacy, as simply there are a lot of Tolkiens out there! They all have their own professional lives and are not leeching off the estate.

And most of all, they are really nice people, often involved with the Tolkien Society even though they have no need to be, and also approachable and friendly.

I honestly don't think they will release film rights to CoH for many, many years, if ever.

[Mithalwen]

Royd Tolkien is the son of Joan Anne daughter of Michael. His father is not a Tolkien. In an interview about his appearance in the films he stated that while he enjoyed the experience he fully understood Christopher's wish to keep his distance from something over which he had no control.

He also stated that while Tolkien's descendents benefit from his works they all worked. I have had e-mail contact with him. He is a nice guy.

Given that Tolkien received a modest amount for the film rights I have no problem if hte family benefit indirectly from the film. The fact that they seem to have given it away is laudable. The films benefitted from plenty of people like me who go very seldom to the cinema going at least once and buying all the DVDs led there by the books.

Christopher Tolkien is not what I would call a public figure by any stretch. He is not in public office he is a private individual. His financial and family affairs are really noones business.

I really find it baffling that people delight in badmouthing him. I could understand it if he had truly cashed in in the way Lal suggested he might, and had spent his retirement endorsing trash and living ala Hugh Heffner but the fact is he has devoted 30 years to editing his fathers notes and drafts apart from his contribution during Tolkien's life time living quietly in France. For achieving this task I admire him greatly - and apart from the sheer scale of the task, I am finding it hard enough to simply type up my late mother's short memoir, so I can only imagine the emotional impact of working through his father's manuscripts. You only have to read the letters to understand how important all Tolkien's family was to him but there was a special bond with Christopher. I rather doubt his affection was so misplaced as some people clearly like to believe.

[Macalaure]

Not a lot enthusiasm on this thread, as it seems.
Though I can understand that many of you are sceptic, I don’t share the frustration of some. I like watching movies, and it's almost natural to me to ponder how my favourite stories and books would appear on screen, and how they could be made to appear well. Nobody here wants to see the Children of Húrin (or anything else Tolkien-related)-movie at all costs, but I would greatly appreciate a well-made one. I think this thread is not so much about ‘I want it now!’ but simply for the fun of speculation.

So let's go!

Originally Posted by Lommy

This made me wonder what kind of movie the story would make. I know it'll be easier to speculate once we have the book in our hands, but I think we can still discuss some things here now already. What (if something) things could be left out? What scenes would you definitely want to see? Who should play the main roles? Who should direct it? And so on... I'm interested to hear your opinions about these things.

First off, echoing Squatter among others, nothing should be invented and nothing significantly changed. It’s a dark story and therefore has to be a dark movie. There is very few lightheartedness and it should not be forced upon it, just maybe a little dry humour here or there. It won't be a typical blockbuster movie and definitely no family film like LotR, but then: there have been dark movies that became successful, despite, or even due to, their darkness. The target audience will be smaller than with LotR, but it's there. The label Tolkien might make the film companies desire a lower rating, but if none could be convinced otherwise, I indeed would rather want no CoH on screen at all. Then again, it does have the label Tolkien on it, which will probably automatically make it more interesting to many people - now. I think many people give Peter Jackson too little credit for the risk he (and New Line) took with LotR. It could have turned out to be a grand failure. Now, after the success, the makers of possible further Tolkien-movies might have the 'freedom' to stay closer to the original, because it will sell in either way. Of course, the Hobbit adaptation could prove me horribly wrong on this.
What I'm trying to say is, that there are enough people who would like to watch this kind of movie, and a Children of Húrin true to the original is not be bound to be only a loss of money for a studio - on the contrary, even.


In Letter 210, Tolkien repeatedly says that if a scene cannot be treated properly in the given time, it’s better to cut it out and spend the time on other things. This is a good advice, I think. If you do something, do it properly, or better don’t do it at all. What then could be sacrificed in an adaptation and what not? What is so important that one should spare the time to even expand it?

What could be shortened, in my mind, is:
The Nirnaeth (I love the Nirnaeth, but it isn’t needed in all the detail we know about it. The important things are those related to Húrin and Turgon, and also to Glaurung, Gwindor, Beleg and Mablung)
Túrin among the Outlaws, before Amon Rûdh (There are other passages which are simply more important)
Túrin's return to Dor-lómin (A shortening won’t work here, it’s a do or don’t. Is it really that central to the story?)
The Wanderings of Húrin (The story of Húrin in Brethil needs to go)
Characters that could be dropped: Nellas (As intriguing as she is, she’s a very underdeveloped character), Huor and Rían (As important as they are for the Silmarillion, they have little significance within CoH)

What should not be shortened, if time permits:
Túrin's childhood in Dor-lómin (This could even be expanded, especially for introductorial reasons)
Húrin and Morgoth (It should never be forgotten, as easy as it is, that, all the time, Húrin sits on his place and suffers through it)
Túrin’s relationship to Níniel
Beleg (Since, for a time, he’s even the main character of the story)
Mîm (It’s too easy to just make him into an average villain, but this would take a lot of suspense from the Amon Rûdh scenes)

In between:
Túrin in Doriath (Túrin’s youth is not so important, I think. But from the time when Túrin joins Beleg on, there’s nothing to be left out)
The story of Morwen and Nienor
Túrin in Nargothrond (Personally, I think Finduilas is more important because of the impact she has on the friendship of Túrin and Gwindor, than because of her relationship with Túrin. Additionally, it’s important that it is made plausible how Túrin was able to rise so quickly in Orodreth’s favour, otherwise this might look strange)


The importance of the special effects has been mentioned. They’re a two-sided knife indeed. On the one hand, it’s bad when the effects take over the main focus, on the other hand, nothing destroys the illusion more properly than bad effects. We need a convincing CGI Menegroth and Nargothrond and Angband, and I think that a convincing Glaurung might prove more difficult than a convincing Gollum did, because he's less human-like. The best special effects are those which are so good that the audience isn’t aware of them.

As I already said, I would sacrifice the Nirnaeth for the sake of getting the plot going, but allow me a short tangent here: I really love the Battle of Unnumbered Tears. I adore it. Unlike more or less all other battles I have ever seen in a movie, the Nirnaeth isn’t just a series of hacking and whacking and in the end somebody wins. It has a whole plot of its own, strategy and tragedy, even beyond the slow forging of the Union of Maedhros and the painful aftermath. It’s a long battle whose fortunes ever change, where hope and despair take turns and everybody who takes part in it has a proper story of his own which needs to be tracked. Add to this Elves and Men and Dwarves and Orcs and Balrogs and Dragons and you have something which could be an “Epic Fantasy Battle how it is really supposed to be”. Were we not so restricted in time, I could imagine the Nirnaeth to almost serve as a kind of opening battle, which worked so fine for example in Saving Private Ryan. In fact, I could imagine a fascinating movie which is about nothing else but the Nirnaeth.
The Battle of Tumhalad is closer to an average battle and therefore more boring. Yet, there is more to it than just Túrin and Glaurung, as it features also the deaths of Orodreth and Gwindor, which shouldn’t be treated just as an aside.
My point is that a battle can be much more than a waste of time if it is done well.


There are two problems I see, which would be challenging for a director and a script-writer. One is, there are many locations, and in each Túrin stays not just a short time, but several years. There’s Dor-lómin, Doriath, Amon Rûdh, Nargothrond, Brethil - they all need to be dealt with in detail and the audience has to be made to tie themselves to these places, because Túrin does. This needs much time, for each. The story is the story of a whole life, which means many time jumps, and these rarely do favours to a movie.
The second is a difficulty with the relationship between Túrin and Nienor. It begins at a time when we’re already, approximately, two thirds or even three fourth through the movie. This is not the ideal timing to begin the introduction of a completely new relationship, when the audience already awaits the rise to the climax. Yet it has to be done since it is most central to the story.

Originally Posted by Squatter

The central family grouping of Húrin, Morwen Eledhwen, Túrin, Níenor and Lalaith, then a court group including Thingol and Saeros; the Outlaws, which essentially revolve around the central pairing of Túrin and Beleg, the last of the Petty-dwarves in the persons of Mîm and his sons, another court group at Nargothrond and the Brethil group, particularly Brandir and Dorlas. For antagonists you have Morgoth, Glaurung and Gothmog. Everyone else is essentially a supporting rôle.

Ah! The cast!
I disagree with Squatter, a little. To me, the central characters are Húrin and Morwen, Túrin (young and grown-up) and Nienor, Beleg, Mîm, Gwindor(!), Brandir and of course Morgoth and Glaurung. These are pretty much the only ones who really have depth and need to be casted carefully. Then there’s Sador, Mablung, Thingol and Melian, Saeros, Orodreth and Finduilas, Hunthor and Dorlas. They are supporting roles, though important ones.
Lalaith dies early on and has only few lines. Maybe one or two of the Outlaws could have an increased role, but they don’t really have important individual characters (at least not if the Outlaw part before they find Mîm is shortened, *sharpens scissors*). The people from Nargothrond and Brethil, except the ones already mentioned, won’t be very important and have few lines.
I think Gothmog can be cut entirely. He kills Fingon and is then never seen again, but I fear the audience would expect him to have another appearance, so he will only distract. I would include Sauron as a minor minor character though, just to show that he’s a servant of Morgoth. By this comparison, no other explanation of the status of Morgoth is needed.


One last thing, which many will disagree with. I think it is important that the director has his own vision of the story. If this means he alters the story at some points, I'm fine with it, even though I would (of course) vehemently disagree with the respective instances. One major fault one could do is, in my opinion, to stay too close to the original. If a CoH-movie turned out to be just a retelling of the story as Tolkien wrote it, I fear it will end up being lifeless, dull and empty.
They say you have to be a poet yourself if you want to translate a poem into a different language. I think this holds for the 'translation' of a book to a film as well.


Concerning directors, what about Ang Lee?


Looking at all this, I suddenly feel the urge to apologise for the excessive length...

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

film tie-ins including CT approved covers with film photographs.

Negative. CT has no control over book covers, except to the extent HC and HM might consult him as a courtesy. He opposed film tie-in covers, but was overruled.

[davem]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

Negative. CT has no control over book covers, except to the extent HC and HM might consult him as a courtesy. He opposed film tie-in covers, but was overruled.

I didn't know that he'd been consulted -....interesting. I am aware that CT/The Estate issued a statement that they should make it cleat that they had nothing to do with the movies - which I interpret simply as him wanting clear demarcation lines between the books & the movies- but not that CT had actually opposed movie related book covers.

Certainly, the fact that CT has chosen Harper Collins as publishers of CoH, & that he has chosen to work with Alan Lee as the artist, implies that his working relationship with his publishers is fine.

Also, given the choice of Alan Lee as artist one has to wonder how 'anti-' the movies CT actually is. When I saw the first painting from CoH to be released & saw the detail of the building on the cliff wall, about a third of the way up, I was strongly reminded of the architecture of Rivendell in the movie. I expect the style of the paintings to be very strongly reminiscent of the movies. I'm sure that if CT was as strongly oposed to the movies as is claimed by some Lee's work would not have appeared in the new work

[Sauron the White]

My mentioning of CT aproved film tie-in book covers was based on a short blurb I had read before the films ever came out. It wan not even an article but one of those small single paragraph items that make up a much larger column or article. It could have been in a trade publication such as Publishers Weekly. It simply stated that the Estate was against film covers but has relented after agreeing to a slightly higher than normal royalty payment.

I do know for a hard fact that starting in the 1980's the Estate took a much more "hands on" approach to all visualizing of Middle-earth related illustration. It used to be that the yearly calendars were pretty much in the hands of the Ballantines - Ian and Betty - but then they had to submit both the artist and their work for approval. Perhaps the infamous Brothers Gentile joke painting had something to do with this.

Ted Nasmith has publicly stated that all of his SIL illustrations (fort he most recent edition) had to be approved by the Estate and many of his best were rejected because the Estate did not want any "monsters" depicted and wanted to play down that side of the story.

So the Estate is much more involved with things like covers and calendar illustrations than some may believe.