Kevin's Watch

PJ and GDT are taking questions from fans, and answering the most common 20. (Something PJ did about twice on AICN back when FOTR was considered crazy talk.) [link]

Montresor wrote:The Silmarillion is simply the best High Fantasy work ever written, as far as I'm concerned. Truly great, fully realised, breathtakingly imaginative stuff. Well worth investing the effort into reading it.

Fully realized? You do realize that it was put together from loose notes after the Professor's death?

Don't get me wrong - the Silmarillion contains some great stories. But it's best read as just that; a collection of stories. Any attempt to put it into a single movie would be disastrous.

As far as PJ's LotR goes, my biggest complaint was that he meddled with characters. I can respect changes to plot, as long as the essence of the characters is preserved.

The only character he did justice to was Boromir. The rest of them were trashed for no good reason.

Rigel wrote:

Montresor wrote:The Silmarillion is simply the best High Fantasy work ever written, as far as I'm concerned. Truly great, fully realised, breathtakingly imaginative stuff. Well worth investing the effort into reading it.

Fully realized? You do realize that it was put together from loose notes after the Professor's death?

Yes, I do. Anyone who's read the book should know that. Doesn't change my opinion of it - especially when you compare it to the mountains of pulp-fantasy trash on bookshelves right now.

Rigel wrote: Don't get me wrong - the Silmarillion contains some great stories. But it's best read as just that; a collection of stories. Any attempt to put it into a single movie would be disastrous.

Totally Agree. A story or two would be the best they could do.

Rigel wrote: The only character he did justice to was Boromir. The rest of them were trashed for no good reason.

Totally agree.

The Silmarillion isn't even a collection of stories. Half of it is a summary of an imaginary history, sprinkled with descriptions of a few key scenes. Some passages are imaginary biographies, sprinkled with descriptions of a few key scenes. One passage could be called a story if it stood on its own, but as a story it's a poor story, mostly sketched in, and most of it is devoid of meaning without the larger context.

In its entirity, it is well written, and says something significant. But its more akin to a documentary (or, maybe mockumentary) than a movie. It wonderfully illustrates the Elvish condition as it was shaped by their history.

Montresor wrote:The Silmarillion is simply the best High Fantasy work ever written, as far as I'm concerned. Truly great, fully realised, breathtakingly imaginative stuff. Well worth investing the effort into reading it.

I agree completely.

Rigel wrote:Fully realized? You do realize that it was put together from loose notes after the Professor's death?

Sure, it was a posthumous work. But I you haven't countered Montresor's point by calling it "put together by loose notes." We're talking about "notes" Tolkien had been compiling for nearly half a century, not some notes he scratched out on napkins. I'd say that 4-5 decades worth of notes can be fairly described as "fully realized." The problem with the Silmarillion wasn't a lack of material, but the glut of material Christopher had to work with. He's still publishing that stuff. There simply is no other work of fantasy which is so richly realized.

Don't get me wrong - the Silmarillion contains some great stories. But it's best read as just that; a collection of stories. Any attempt to put it into a single movie would be disastrous.

I disagree wholeheartedly. In fact, I think a Silmarillion movie has the potential to break all fantasy movie conventions, and be recognized as a true work of cinematic art. There are plenty of successful movies which blend multiple storylines and multiple timelines. The fact that the Silmarillion contains a nonlinear structure could be its greatest strength. The sheer unique nature of its structure could work to its advantage. I think a creative director could do something with it that--while not strictly "Hollywood"--would be breathtaking.

As far as PJ's LotR goes, my biggest complaint was that he meddled with characters. I can respect changes to plot, as long as the essence of the characters is preserved.

The only character he did justice to was Boromir. The rest of them were trashed for no good reason.

What was wrong with Gollum? As far as an animated character goes, Gollum is something we've never seen before.

I thought Gandalf was fine. Bilbo was great. Frodo was good until ROTK. Galadriel was perfect. Saruman was fantastic. Wormtongue was even better than the books.

Tolkien didn't really give us stunning characters to begin with. None of his characters are every fleshed out with much detail. Tolkien is more about world-creation than characters. I think Jackson did an admirable job.

Montresor wrote: Yes, I do. Anyone who's read the book should know that. Doesn't change my opinion of it - especially when you compare it to the mountains of pulp-fantasy trash on bookshelves right now.

Good point. When I think of some of the trash I used to like growing up... <shudders>

As far as PJ goes, I was probably being a little too harsh. The films were quite enjoyable, and I understand completely that they have to make changes for it to work as a film.

But it seemed that many of the characters had their fundamental personas altered for the sake of making them fit predefined roles.

These characters were amazingly complex, and lengthy histories, conflicts and motivations that were never portrayed in the movies. In fact, the character conflicts in the movies always seemed so shallow.

Case in point: The Aragorn / Arwen / Eowyn triangle. Sure, Aragorn probably doubted his future with Arwen (he's human, after all, and there's nothing more human than good old-fashioned TC style self doubt). But by the time he met Eowyn, Aragorn had been working for 87 years to prove his love and worth to Arwen and her father, respectively. From the impression I get when reading the books, I doubt he would seriously consider throwing that away for some tart on a horse he just happened to meet.

Malik23 wrote: Tolkien didn't really give us stunning characters to begin with. None of his characters are every fleshed out with much detail. Tolkien is more about world-creation than characters.

I disagree. Tolkien gave us great characters. It's just that their stories spanned years, decades or even centuries, whereas the film compressed everything to a single year.

Rigel wrote:Case in point: The Aragorn / Arwen / Eowyn triangle.

The movies really highlighted the Aragorn / Boromir / Frodo triangle well, and later the Frodo / Sam / Gollum triangle. There's only room for so many triangles in a movie. I thought they hit the right note on the A/A/E triangle - it was in the air, but they didn't press it - same as the books.

wayfriend wrote: The movies really highlighted the Aragorn / Boromir / Frodo triangle well, and later the Frodo / Sam / Gollum triangle. There's only room for so many triangles in a movie. I thought they hit the right note on the A/A/E triangle - it was in the air, but they didn't press it - same as the books.

That's the thing, though; it wasn't even in the books! Until the Battle of Pelennor Field, Aragorn was, at best, dismissive of Eowyn. After that, he "graduated" from dismissal to pity.

And she was infected with hero worship, almost as bad as LA has for TC.

All in all, it's hard to see how that would work - yet PJ just had to make a big deal out of it in the movie.

Hmm... I picked up on Eowyn thinking hot thoughts about Aragorn in the book. Yeah, the movie acted it out more ... but that's what movies are for.

Oh, don't get me wrong - Eowyn totally wanted Aragorn. It's just that in the book, it was totally one sided. In the movie, they make it seem like he really considers her.

Hmm... I didn't see that in the movie anywhere. But that explains why I'm not getting what your saying.

Filming the Silmarillion would be like trying to film The Bible as a single Narrative. I just don't see it working. Of course, there are plenty of great stories in there! (See 10 Commandments, or Last Temptation of Christ) But it's bogged down by Begets. (Which is totally fine. I wouldn't have it any other way, thats exactly what the Silmarillion is supposed to be. A feigned mythic history.)

Bah! I forgot to look at the Q&A with Del Toro and Jackson. And now I can't find it on AICN.

Anybody know where I can find this?

Edit: NEVERMIND! I'm an idiot. I thought it was last weekend, but it is indeed this weekend.

Rigel wrote:Oh, don't get me wrong - Eowyn totally wanted Aragorn. It's just that in the book, it was totally one sided. In the movie, they make it seem like he really considers her.

I agree with wayfriend that Aragon doesn't want her. He is moved by her love for him -- a love that cannot be fulfilled. It kinda paralells his love for Arwen, in that it seemed they could not be together (for real and imagined reasons).
He cares for her, yes, but it is a platonic love, not a romantic love.

BTW, Viggo seems to be signed on. Fran and Phillipa seems confirmed as the writers. Pre-production has begun.

A reporter thrust a mic in Liv Tylers face and asked if she was going to be in The Hobbit, and she said, basically, "huh ... what?". Hadn't even heard about it yet. So I'm guessing that that's a "no".

Um...

Arwen isn't in Rivendell at the time of Bilbo's first visits...is she? And I don't remember any other opportunity for them to meet...

I wonder how they'll fit Aragorn in...
Part two with the finding of Gollum?

Aragorn was in Rivendell when Bilbo visited, but he was a youth of 12 or thereabouts. Arwen of course is much older. She generally lived in Rivendell, but she did spend some time living in Lothlorien with Galadriel, who was her grandmother. So it could go wither way. I could see her making a cameo when the elves are singing to the grumpy dwarves.

Right, Aragorn met Arwen when he was 20, as it was the first time during his lifetime that she had visited Rivendell.

Guillermo del Toro:

I may be in the minority, but I absolutely LOVE Beorn and I intend to feature him in the films. BTW I also like TB quite a bit…

Oh yes!!

He has just made my family's year!!

...seriously, as I said before...maybe...people will stop asking Beorn how he spells his name after the movies come out...

...now I'm worried...what if we have been pronouncing it wrong all these years...?

...now I'm worried...what if we have been pronouncing it wrong all these years...?

Depends if you've been pronouncing it BEE-yorn or Bay-orn? No doubt PJ will have Gandalf saying bi-ORRRRRRN