I'm thinking the Covenant books should be indie films. I watched Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning the full-length Star Trek/Babylon 5 spoof (which is available as a free download, hint, hint) and was quite impressed. Among other things, the film is very much on a different technological level than Fantasy Bedroom Hour. The special effects were the nineties Hollywood level.
On a more professional side, Reign of Fire is a few years old now and had some nice-looking dragons. It could have used a better script though, but if Star Wreck could have one, as well as what looks to me better cinematography, there is no reason Reign of Fire couldn't have had the potential for greatness. In the eighties The Evil Dead achieved that greatness without a big budget or any digital effects. I saw The Evil Dead on the big screen when it was rereleased, and it was so absorbing and scary I forgot the blurry picture quality within minutes.
Now I think the quality of a Covenant film doesn't hang on whether the light that hits the sweat on an ur-vile eartip refracts in the correct way. Rather I would like the film to reflect the deep qualities that make the book good in the first place and incidentally happen to be anti-Hollywood. I also think a Covenant film could benefit from an impressionistic visual style. The film doesn't have to show a detailed view of an ur-vile but rather give the impression that it's scary, like the alien in the original Alien, another favorite of mine. (Real horses instead of people in horse costumes would be appreciated by me, though.) The recent Sin City experimented successfully with a different visual style. I would like a Covenant movie do something like that, but of course with a style of it's own. Thomas Covenant as sanitized Hollywood mindcandy would be a disaster.
Indie Film
Moderators: Orlion, kevinswatch
i would agree with that. But there's something i don't understand...
Well, i agree with what you say, first of all that TCTC should be developed in a whole new view and filming like you said...the only problem with that is atually achieving it; having the opportunities to actually REACH that goal...if it were all up to us, i'm sure the movie would turn out to be a real masterpiece of uniqueness...but it isn't, and i'm not sure if there even will be a movie series.
Consider: at first the LOTR series was considered folly; nobody in their right mind would turn it into a movie because of what it meant to the readers and of how long ould be...TCTC will be about the same endeavor and LOTR supposedly didn't meet the readers' expectations. A movie might be the worst thing that ever happened to Thomas Covenant--but even LOTR wasn't a total loss. It was a blockbuster and recieved a lot of money for PJ's effort.
What i'm trying to say is... that perhaps TCTC might be able to be successful, but without good resources, it cannot meet the criteria that people here expect of it--or what you expect of it.
believe me, that kind of uniqueness would be cordially welcomed by everyone including me.
Well, i agree with what you say, first of all that TCTC should be developed in a whole new view and filming like you said...the only problem with that is atually achieving it; having the opportunities to actually REACH that goal...if it were all up to us, i'm sure the movie would turn out to be a real masterpiece of uniqueness...but it isn't, and i'm not sure if there even will be a movie series.
Consider: at first the LOTR series was considered folly; nobody in their right mind would turn it into a movie because of what it meant to the readers and of how long ould be...TCTC will be about the same endeavor and LOTR supposedly didn't meet the readers' expectations. A movie might be the worst thing that ever happened to Thomas Covenant--but even LOTR wasn't a total loss. It was a blockbuster and recieved a lot of money for PJ's effort.
What i'm trying to say is... that perhaps TCTC might be able to be successful, but without good resources, it cannot meet the criteria that people here expect of it--or what you expect of it.
believe me, that kind of uniqueness would be cordially welcomed by everyone including me.
As a Tolkien fan who experienced the wait for the movies and the subsequent reactions, I can say that the movies succeeded very well in pleasing the fans, me included, even though I don't think they quite reach the brilliance of the books. I was a revisionist in the great purist/revisionist wars, but only a very few of the most extreme purists found themselves hating the movie. Though, some analytical online fans including me suffered from the "first viewing syndrome" which meant that we couldn't enjoy the movie until after several viewings since we would be so caught up in analyzing every tiny aspect of the movie that we couldn't just let go and enjoy it. We would deduce that we were watching a great movie but we wouldn't really feel it after several viewings. The infamous "radioactive Galadriel" scene took me some nine viewings to appreciate on its own terms, since it diverged so radically from the way I had imagined it when I read the book.
Of course I have some points to complain of, such as the way Denethor's character was mangled by PJ, but I have seen many other people say that Denethor was just like they had imagined him. (I think my view is the one supported by the text.) On the other hand, the big outrage about Faramir is something that did not include me. I think Faramir was a little bit colder in the movie, but I think the change is much less extreme than many people think. Faramir wasn't Mr. Epitome of Kindness and Perfection in the books either. Tolkien was a subtler author than that. Some people make it sound like Faramir was immune to the One Ring.
Anyway, I think the impression that the fans didn't like the movies comes from the fact that there isn't that much to discuss about how everyone agrees that the Shire was just perfect. The threads with longevity are those where people disagree. If there are no huge issues to disagree about, smaller issues will be concentrated on instead and made seem huge.
I realize I'm digressing away from TC. Anyway, I think TC as a story is inherently more suited to a smaller scale than LotR. There are fewer main character and there is more emphasis on and room for things that happen within the characters, traditionally a strength of indie films.
The following attempts to list everyone who is actually important to the plot of LFB so that they should be remembered as themselves. (I'm not suggesting that someone like Lord Osondrea should be cut, but that a viewer doesn't need to remember who she is.)
Thomas Covenant
Lord Foul (mostly offscreen)
Drool Rockworm (mostly offscreen)
Saltheart Foamfollower
Lord Mhoram
Bannor
Atiaran (goes away before halfway)
Lena (mostly offscreen, for future reference)
High Lord Prothall
High Lord Kevin (likely entirely offscreen, for future reference)
Triock (cameo for future reference)
Trell (cameo for future reference)
Pietten (cameo for future reference)
Of course I have some points to complain of, such as the way Denethor's character was mangled by PJ, but I have seen many other people say that Denethor was just like they had imagined him. (I think my view is the one supported by the text.) On the other hand, the big outrage about Faramir is something that did not include me. I think Faramir was a little bit colder in the movie, but I think the change is much less extreme than many people think. Faramir wasn't Mr. Epitome of Kindness and Perfection in the books either. Tolkien was a subtler author than that. Some people make it sound like Faramir was immune to the One Ring.
Anyway, I think the impression that the fans didn't like the movies comes from the fact that there isn't that much to discuss about how everyone agrees that the Shire was just perfect. The threads with longevity are those where people disagree. If there are no huge issues to disagree about, smaller issues will be concentrated on instead and made seem huge.
I realize I'm digressing away from TC. Anyway, I think TC as a story is inherently more suited to a smaller scale than LotR. There are fewer main character and there is more emphasis on and room for things that happen within the characters, traditionally a strength of indie films.
The following attempts to list everyone who is actually important to the plot of LFB so that they should be remembered as themselves. (I'm not suggesting that someone like Lord Osondrea should be cut, but that a viewer doesn't need to remember who she is.)
Thomas Covenant
Lord Foul (mostly offscreen)
Drool Rockworm (mostly offscreen)
Saltheart Foamfollower
Lord Mhoram
Bannor
Atiaran (goes away before halfway)
Lena (mostly offscreen, for future reference)
High Lord Prothall
High Lord Kevin (likely entirely offscreen, for future reference)
Triock (cameo for future reference)
Trell (cameo for future reference)
Pietten (cameo for future reference)
-
wayfriend
- .
- Posts: 20957
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 6 times
Making a movie is like making a deal with the devil. There is the movie you want to make. And then there is the movie that you need to make, or else you don't get the resources to make it at all. And when there's that much money involved, people are more interested in blockbuster-formula, which they think means low risk, than high art, which they think is high risk.
My attitude is to be grateful for the parts of the adaptation that I liked, and chalk the rest up as the price paid.
My attitude is to be grateful for the parts of the adaptation that I liked, and chalk the rest up as the price paid.
.
-
The Somberlain
- <i>Haruchai</i>
- Posts: 615
- Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 11:25 am
- Location: Brussels
- Contact:
On the subject of low-budget effects, they could certainly take a leaf out of the original Star Wars. I guess that probably had a high budget, but it was a good 30 years ago, so I'm sure it'd be easy to do that for less, and better. But a lot of the effects in Star Wars were fairly realistic - certainly enough that it didn't ruin the film - and I think they mostly used models and things. Certainly they didn't need LOTR levels of CGI.
In fact, another thing to take from Star Wars (I think this may have been mentioned in another thread): The less big-name actors used, the less you have to pay the actors; the more you have for the film proper. I think I'm right in saying that Alec Guiness was the only properly famous actor when A New Hope came out. Perhaps whoever plays, say, Atiaran could be well known. But TC, Foamfollower etc. needn't be.
I don't know exactly how they did the hobbits in LOTR, but I don't think it was too difficult or expensive; the same process (in reverse) could be done for Foamfollower. And Revelstone, too, since everything there is built for Giants. That'll save costs on building huge sets.
If we assume they won't get a huge major studio budget, their best inspiration would definitely be all these films with good special effects, but from 2-3 decades ago.
In fact, another thing to take from Star Wars (I think this may have been mentioned in another thread): The less big-name actors used, the less you have to pay the actors; the more you have for the film proper. I think I'm right in saying that Alec Guiness was the only properly famous actor when A New Hope came out. Perhaps whoever plays, say, Atiaran could be well known. But TC, Foamfollower etc. needn't be.
I don't know exactly how they did the hobbits in LOTR, but I don't think it was too difficult or expensive; the same process (in reverse) could be done for Foamfollower. And Revelstone, too, since everything there is built for Giants. That'll save costs on building huge sets.
If we assume they won't get a huge major studio budget, their best inspiration would definitely be all these films with good special effects, but from 2-3 decades ago.
forced perspective. That could definitely work for the giants, but i think they would need to build 'bigatures' in order to portray Revelstone i suppose the same way they did Minas Tirith.The Somberlain wrote:I don't know exactly how they did the hobbits in LOTR, but I don't think it was too difficult or expensive; the same process (in reverse) could be done for Foamfollower. And Revelstone, too, since everything there is built for Giants. That'll save costs on building huge sets.