"The Silmarillion" movie

Originally posted by azszhz
i would love to see the silmarilion as a movies that would be wonderfull but in my oppinion i think it would be almost impostible cuz the information in there it would be to much work and stuff

course they said the same thing about Lotr so... maybe it would be possible

Only sceptics said that about LOTR. Whereas even the fans in the movie business know this is a bad idea.

There is not enough material for multiple films and no central plotline for one single film. You can cast no decent lead and have no decent pull for audiences; it is just a bad idea all around. The only people who want and would like it are die-hard fans- it is not a project for the general public.

GLORFINDEL!!!-the only reason for "seeing" it

Why don't they just make it into a miniseries? That way they could have the major plotlines in two hour segments and be able to fit most of the material in...

i would not like to see the sil on tv being interupted by ads, and comercials...it would ruin it...

In the end, I feel we should appreciate the Silmarillion for what it is- an interesting literary glimpse into Tolkien's other ideas. NOT a classic story of all time which could be made into a classic film for all time, like LOTR was. [/B]

It IS a classic story!!! it's my favorite book of all time!!

miniseries would really be the only way to make the sil, but that would ruin the book. I dont want to happen to the sil what happened to lotr now... loads of socalled fans that only live one of the actors and think theyre die-hard fans because they have an OB-poster hanging in their room.

The book is classic (and imo 2nd best book ever... after the Lays of Beleriand) but its a book and not a film. Hobbit would be a better choice.

Well, you are entitled to your opinions on it being a classic story but I find that opinion entirely absurd. It isn't even finished. The pacing is ridiculous, going into great detail on some less relevant areas and quickly skipping over vital parts. It reads like a narrative rather than a story, huge segments are devoid of all speech save the most basic, there are too many characters with too little focus and development over too long a time period, and it was NEVER MEANT to be a story along the same lines of the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings.

The Silmarillion isnt really finished, but it's not just a collection of some various stories - Tolkien already wanted to publish the Sil (instead of LoTR) so it has to be kinda finished, at least the contents. Maybe Christopher made it "publishable" four years after Tolkien's death, but I think most of it was as Tolkien himself already wanted it to be.

Christopher says its a "compilation [...] from sources of great diversity (poems, and annals, and oral tales)", but already compiled by Tolkien to form a finished book.

And it was continuously in flux, and Tolkien was never happy with it, and it was never put by Tolkien into continual narrative detail.

Says Christopher, upon pointing out the problems of the fact that some parts of the book are imcompatible with others:

"A complete consistency (either within the compass of The Silmarillion itself or between [it] and other published writing's of my father's) is not to be looked for."

When even the editor conedes it is not a proper story- and that is AFTER editing it- yuou know there is a problem.

"To this may be ascribed the varying speed of the narrative and fullness of detail in different parts... and also some differences of tone and portrayal, some obscurities, and, here and there, some lack of cohesion."

About as close to damning as Chris could reasonably get. He released it because he thought it was of interest to see the background his father used (he directly states that Tolkien used it more as a background than a story) and no matter what Tolkien originally intended for its ultimate publication it never came CLOSE to reaching that stage now, and what we have is not- as Chris directly says- meant to be compared as a story with the Hobbit or LOTR.

And he never says in that Preface that it was already compiled to be a finished work- he says exactly the opposite when he talks of the difficulties of editing it into a single text.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
And he never says in that Preface that it was already compiled to be a finished work- he says exactly the opposite when he talks of the difficulties of editing it into a single text.

It's not a whole story like lotr and the hobbit, but it's still the best and most complete source about the Legends of the First Age (which are imo classic) and definitely more reliable than the Unfinished Tales and the History.

Just about anything is more reliable than Unfinished Tales.

And yes, I do not mean to DAMN the book. it is by far the best glimpse into the background Tolkien worked on.

But it is NOT a complete story like the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings and a film of such- basically- a mess, is entirely impractical.

On a personal note, actually, I find the First Age intensly dull. I have always been of the opinion that the Third Age was the focus of Tolkien for good reason.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Just about anything is more reliable than Unfinished Tales.

On a personal note, actually, I find the First Age intensly dull. I have always been of the opinion that the Third Age was the focus of Tolkien for good reason.

😄 lol yes but it still has loads of interesting information ... even if its not reliable 😄

Hm I personally like the First Age best... Second Age is great for the language of Númenor, like the Third Age a lot, too, but as soon as the Hobbits appear everything becomes a little irritating I think. It's a little hard to merge the stuff in LOTR with the Sil - especially the Rings that never appear in Númenor or something.

*ponders*

Originally posted by Smodden
*ponders*

a Valaquenta movie would have been excellent, it would bassically be a documentery or a biography for each character.

Also remember there are two published versions of the SIlmarillion... the first edition varies considerably from the present one, especially with the names of Elves and Elf-houses... if anyone has a copy of the first "Tolkien Companion" look up Finwe, and ypu'll see what I mean...

Mind you, if you want to see the Narn -i-hin-Hurin, just check out your local opera house and see if Wagner's "Ring" is being performed... "Siegfried" is almost identical...

most people who pick up the sil. never finish it.
it's not a "proper novel"

what it is (in combination with unfinished tales) is a collected history assembled like the bible of tolkiens world. and it is my favorite because it delves so heavily into the things i find most facinating. and many of the stories really touched me reading them.

it's a book to be reckoned with and like an unfinshed symphony can and should be enjoyed despite it's incompleted but magnificent state!!!

Originally posted by big gay kirk
Also remember there are two published versions of the SIlmarillion... the first edition varies considerably from the present one, especially with the names of Elves and Elf-houses... if anyone has a copy of the first "Tolkien Companion" look up Finwe, and ypu'll see what I mean...

Well lol look into the Lost Tales its far worse there 😄

Tolkien also changed the same names for the later editions of LoTR (like Finarfin, Finrod)

whoah exa and ush had standoff lol

whooooot go exa!

*hides from ush*