i just don't see it happening.

[Sergio]

i don't see it happening. please do not get all up in arms, i would like to, but don't see it.

first off, lot's of narrative dialog. i think that's what made the books so great! SRD could write three pages worth of text just describing someone lifting a spoon from a bowl to their mouth. and he does it in such an amazingly rich way, that you aren't bored but captured.

secondly, LFB ends in an anti-climactic way for hollywood. yes, the end to the book, is climactic, but not in terms of the hero (TC). he doesn't do much in terms of "hollywood" endings. so if the first movie encompasses just the first book, eh...i dunno.

thirdly, and i mean no disrespect, but does TC have enough of a following to assure hollywood that the risk-reward ratio is enough to put up the dough to do this right?

i don't know that it does. everybody knew what LOTR was before the first movie came out. whether they read it or not. i don't believe the same applies here. again no disrespct intended, i read very few fantasy books, but am so glad i found TCTC and have re-read them over and over and over.

anyway, go ahead, flame now if you wish, but i just don't see it happening.

[marshm]

I'm not going to flame, but offer some additional perspective.

- You are right, there is not the "awareness" of TCTC there was of LOTR. But, had you read "The Sentinal" before seeing "2001: A Space Odyssey"? How many people read "d'Entre les Morts" before seeing "Vertigo"?

- You are right in characterizing the end of LFB. I believe the three movies need to be made in the same fashion as LOTR (simultaneous or immediately sequential). Another benefit for the filmmaker would be the ability to do, for example, all scenes related to Revelstone at once for all three movies - major savings over doing it three separate times.

- I believe the director is the most important individual for this effort, including from a marketing perspective. The right director will not ony make the movies work, but attract acting talent and (most importantly) bring credibility to the effort. Too bad Stanley Kubrik is gone.

- The right screenplay (implemented by the right director) can translate the "feel" of SRD's work to film. Charles Dickens was a similarly descriptive narrative writer (have you ever read "Bleak House?). Several of his works have been successfully translated to screen.

I believe it CAN be done. Whether it WILL be done is the question.

[[Syl]]

It's going to depend on the success of TLtW&tW, I think. And it looks like it will be a reasonable success, though much of it depends on how much they gross vs. production cost.

And though I like Kubrik, I think even if he were alive, Lynch would be a better fit. He can create an emotional background almost as stark as Kubrik, but I think he has a better eye for visuals and camera use.

[Sergio]

WARNING, PROFOUND LANGUAGE ENCLOSED

It's going to depend on the success of TLtW&tW

the what

as for kubrik and lynch i would not want either of them. i know i won't say this right, and this will be blasphemy to some, but if i ever have the privilage to see these books on screen, i would not want a director who takes "video masterbation (VM)" to new heights. that probably doesn't make sense, but to try and clarify what i mean by VM;

jackson's LOTR was not VM...
coppola's dracula (1992) was...
kubrik's eye's wide shut was pure VM, i would rather eat a bullet than have to sit through that again.

while kubrik's VM is less in your face (no pun intended), lynch's is almost pure VM.

LOTR had amazing effects, but they never got in the way of the story, or drowned it out. when i think of many kubrik & lynch films the VM gets in the way. but not full metal jacket or clockwork orange...actually kubrik's form of VM was unique and rarely got in the way....but to me it was always a pure HIT or MISS result.

i am sure i will be so misunderstood here, but hey, that's my two cents.

[marshm]

Sergio, I think I know what you are trying to say, even if your "profanity" is spelled wrong! (m**turb*****).

I was more thinking the imagery Kubrik created with "Barry Lyndon", "A Clockwork Orange" and "Full Metal Jacket".

And Sylvanus, I am a huge fan of Lynch, but he is way wrong for TC movies, just as Scott, Cameron, Spielberg and Lucas and other fine directors would be wrong. I'd rather see Luc Besson ("The Professional") or Gregory Hoblit ("Frequency", "Fallen"). Remember, you want someone with some success and LOTS of potential. How many big successes did Peter Jackson have before LOTR?

[marshm]

Oh yeah - it means "The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe"

[Warmark Jay]

Oh yeah - it means "The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe"

Which, by all accounts, is shaping up to be a shameless attempt to cash in on the LoTR movies. If it bombs - and I suspect (and half-hope) that it will - the TC movies might be a tough sell to studios.

[Alynna Lis Eachann]

From SRD's website:

The production team of Mark Gordon ("Saving Private Ryan") and Peter Winther ("Independence Day") is quite serious about wanting to make a "Covenant" film. "Revelstone Development" has a design in place and a screenwriter on board (John Orloff, "Band of Brothers"). What Gordon and Winther do *not* have is a studio (i.e. money); and without a studio little or nothing is likely to happen. Since Hollywood basically shuts down in December, Gordon and Winther plan to start approaching studios in January.

It's gonna be these guys or nobody. Orloff and Winther are fans of the book (Orloff has posted here a of couple times, if you haven't seen), so they'll stay as true as they can in the film medium. What I'm not banking on is that a studio will even pick this up... I'm inclined to believe, too, that this project will need major special effects work. That might be a stopping point for a studio, even if it's willing to take a chance on the script. SFX cost money.

[Myste]

I think the studios are probably more inclined to make a big SFX movie now than they were fifteen years ago, but it's a good point. I really think the story's going to be the sticking point--mainly because I believe that JohnOrloff et al will be as true to it as they possibly can, and finding a way to pitch the adventures of a Leper in FantasyLand is not going to be easy. Unless, of course, they find the Money who says, "OMG, a Leper in FantasyLand is exactly what I've been looking for! What pathos! What irony! Now, if only there was a way to make sure the Leper is perceived as a real jerk..."

[drew]

I don't think they need all that much in pecial effects...other than Foamfollower.
The ur-viles and Whanym wouldn't be that tough to do, Foul would most likely be CGI but we don't see all that much of him anyways.
Revelstone could be a minature when seen from a distance.
The batttle scenes just need lots of extras.
they will need a good location to film for the sceneries, they'd probebly have to shoot at more than one location...they need desert and mountains and cliffs, and rolling hills.

But I don't think they need to break the bank on special effects.

[hamako]

I'd agree with Sergio, can't see it happening really. Too much to live upto (post LOTR) and as far as a studio etc are concerned, I'd imagine too much of a gamble.

I do think it would cost a fortune too, mainly becuase of the scale required for the locations and the obviousl necessity for effects.

To give an idea of the cost of effects: a friend of mine is a special effects freelancer, the last piece he did was building the ziggurats (Predator temples) and the arctic bases in the Alien vs Predator film (OK by all acounts it's not too clever a film, but that wasn't his fault!). Building one of the arctic sets that had to be blown up took 2 weeks, cost 70000 (£) to rebuild, god knows how much to construct in the first place. The mother alien animotronic model cost a million on it's own. So you soon see that it all racks up. I also heard the the dogfight scene in the Hulk movie cost around $16 million in CGI (or was it six!??) - doesn't really matter though does it? POint is, if you need CGI, (which this film will) it costs.

Can't see how you could do the chronicles justice by producing it on the cheap. Capping this is the fact that the books are not that widely known - despite the fact that they have sold well over time, maybe they are not populrised enough in a potential investor's eye to justify the gamble of producing the film.

Hope I'm worong, but I don't think so.

[CovenantJr]

I'm inclined to agree Hamako. But as I (and many others) have said before, I think the biggest obstacle will be the fact that so much is internal.

[dlbpharmd]

Evidently SRD doesn't think a movie will be made - see this Q&A from the GI:

Robert J Frias: Mr Donaldson, this is more of an observational type question than an actual one, but I imagine an answer or opinion can be culled from you.

This pertains to the current "movie" trends and thinking [If that can be used at all in respect to H-Wood].

As a young man I read comics. Then I became a dealer profiteering from their collectibility. The trends in H-Wood are come to them as the ground was largely untapped and rich. Now with the success of the LOTR movies and CGI your books seem a clear choice. Moreover they are [when hindsight will be available], a "No-Brainer".

My observation is simple. We need Fantasy! Escapism in all its forms is a major pasttime is this [and a few] other countries. Video games, DVD,s and the froliferation of other distractions [READ: cell phones] only confirms our need for outside stimuli.

The current crop of comic movies and the wealth they have generated makes it all to clear the Covenant series will get done whether for good or ill. But there is hope. I have seen the material treated with a certain respect and downright fealty so my optimism remains. I have been to sites that suggest cast and directors and have agreed or disagreed [not that it matters an iota].

These few observations are just that and are meant to pry some kind of other answer from you beside your standard.

I also thank you for picking your outlet for your voice. You have made me smile, laugh out loud and get totally aggravated. Bravo for evoking in me these feelings over the last 25 years.

I don't know what you consider a "standard" response, but you're wrong about one thing. There is not only no guarantee that "Covenant" will be filmed; there is very little likelihood. Think of the odds against. And I don't mean the technical odds, which hardly exist anymore: I mean the odds of theme and character. Why try to compete with the success of LOTR by producing a dark fantasy about a leper/rapist when there are *mountains* of easy fantasy out there begging to be filmed? We'll see writers like Feist, Brooks, Goodkind, and Jordan filmed long before any studio seriously considers Donaldson--or even Moorcock.

(03/13/2005)

[Sergio]

Why try to compete with the success of LOTR by producing a dark fantasy about a leper/rapist when there are *mountains* of easy fantasy out there begging to be filmed?

I think that says it best. As for;

We'll see writers like Feist, Brooks, Goodkind, and Jordan filmed long before any studio seriously considers Donaldson--or even Moorcock.

I think that studios will demand he legally change his name first. I swear, I still have the maturity of a 12 year old.

[ur-bane]

This is true, with emphasis on EASY fantasy.
By no means would these films be easy.
Especially when you consider that there is just as much, if not more, happening during the TC journeys as there is once the destination is reached.
Hollywood doesn't usally concern itself with the journey.

I can see the lame-a$$ version already.....

Covenant is talking to the girl behaind the counter at the phone company...his bill is already paid...he walks outside and meets the Ocher-robed man......FADE TO BLACK..........we flashback to the leprosarium just long enough to realize TC is a leper...fade to black.....Covenant takes the note out of his pocket. ..the camera focuses in on the writing....you barely have enough time to read it when you hear the squeal of tires......quick fade-out/fade in to the police car screaming toward the camera.......Covenant drops....as he does so, he becomes transparent and his transparent form tumbles through time/space ......FADE TO BLACK.....he resubstantiates in Kiril Threndor.....Foul and Drool talk to him......FADE OUT/FADE IN to Kevin's Watch.......Lena comes....without transition, they are on the ground....then we meet Atiaran and Trell......the mending of the pot is skipped, because the import is overlooked while writing the screenplay.....Lena and Covenant end up at the river, so we miss Lord Kevin's Lament........Covenant rapes Lena (in a cheesy version we would see more than the slap and him going after her) Morning comes ....the screen is blurred as we hear Lena whisper......Fade To Black.....Covenant is met by Atiaran, and the sojourn together.......Triock appears.....Atiaran hardens against Covenant......suddenly we approach Soaring Woodhelvin...the "storm" is overlooked as well as the flash from Covenant's ring that turned it, the dead Waynhim all but forgotten.....Now we see the Celebration....now we are at the Soulsease....we meet Foamfollower (Here they may take some time to show Atiaran walking away).....etc.etc.etc.

In this version, 10 minutes have gone by so that they can fit it all into a 90 minute film.
Where is the character development? When do we see the internal struggles of the characters? How do we form the bonds with the people of the Land that we formed while reading the books?

I mean, looking at Elijah Woods for 2 hours with his creased brow and I-think-I-might-cry eyes just won't cut it.

I personally don't think anyone out there can make a film and have it do justice to the book. Plus, I already like the film that plays in my head as I read the Chronicles.

[paulcoz]

There's also the fact that if they do make the film, it will be tailored to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. So, this pretty much guarantees that it won't 'ring true' for the real fans (those who already love the books).

I'm not a big fan of Tolkien, but I must say I'd rather read the books of LOTR than watch the PJ movies anyday. The movies take Tolkien's story and then apply these cliched representations of love, loyalty, fear, action that we have come to see in a variety of movies because they are instantly recognisable to audiences (eg. so that people can easily relate) - 'DO YOU GET IT YET STUPID!??'. Goodbye subtlety!

Paulcoz.

[Loredoctor]

True, but the book was sort of like that, as well.

[stonedowner A]

I'm a big fan of this series, but I can't see it being made either. I mean it has the protagonist of an indie film, but the cost and scope of a blockbuster. Only an indie film could handle the angst and themes of the books. Have there been any big budget films where the protagonist was someone that the audience had a hard time liking? Some big movies, you might not like the main character at the beginning of the movie, but you like him at the end, after he's rehabilitated himself at least somewhat. However, even at the end of Lord Foul's Bane, you're still not sure if you really like the guy.

[The Somberlain]

We could start a Watch petition and raise the budget ourselves!

[Baracka]

I think the TC Chronicles should each be a television series. Perhaps each book can be 1 season, for a total of 6 seasons.

These books are way too complex to be packed into a single feature film.