Kevin's Watch

It's sad, but I'm already starting to get pumped up about this thing...heh. I need to start lowering my expectations now...

some angry people

Only some? Heh. I think more like all.

I think the best we can all hope for is a LotR type of production... I think that's the best anyone can do with a book conversion.

I mean...when I think about a Covenant movie...that's what I hope to see. Hopefully they'll at least get the beauty of the Land done right.

Then all we have to do is PRAY that they keep as many details in the movie as possible.

I can see it now..."Whaddaya mean Mhoram isn't in the movies???" Heh.

The worst we can expect...I guess would be Timeline...(shudder).

-jay(Must...lower...expectations...heh.)

They make Mhoram possessed by Foul.

Maybe we should let them know right now that we will all hate it and not pay to see it if they don't stick to the true story. They go changing it and HEADS WILL ROLL!
Ok. where do we email our comments?

Ok. I told them to stick to the story as it was written by Donaldson or it's their A--.
How's that?
Now, what's the real email address????

Let's not go overboard on the fanboy enthusiasm. Jay has the right idea, though I'd say let's keep our expectations realistic. The movies could never be as good as the books. "Perfect is the enemy of good." Let's just hope it's good. It's not an unreasonable expectation, considering hundreds of good movies are made every year and LotR proved that even a really good movie can be made from an even better source material.

And please, let us not frighten already timid producers with our fears, or even believe our miniscule collective voice would carry much weight.

I see them doing something like changing TC's disease and leaving out details. Mostly, I fear that they would leave out important elements - such as Lena's rape - because they are afraid of it.

But they can't leave out Lena's rape without removing

Spoiler

Elena, the Power of Command, Kevin's Spectre, the loss of the Staff, Trell's attempt at Desecration...

My point exactly!

I've posted earlier, that I can see them making it more of a suduction, than a rape. Then Maybe he gets caught, by Trell or Atiaran

For me, the whole thing hinges on the rape. I'd go see it either way, see how they portrayed the characters/scenes etc. But without the rape, it isn't the same story at all.

Agreed. It is absolutely pivotal.

Time for a quick reality check folks.

Let's make the BIG assumption that the movie(s) eventually gets made in a few years time... There is no way that they will be made as a scene-for-scene, wholly accurate conversion of the books. It just doesn't happen, for a whole host of reasons. Films and books are completely different media that work on completely different levels.

Look at the LOTR conversions, which I thought were excellent. Extra characters added in, entire portions of the books removed, pivotal scenes changed. Did that distract from the overall experience of the films? Not for me. Did I miss Tom Bombadill, or the scouring of the shire? I certasinly didn't miss the scouring, which IMHO was superfluous in the books themselves. Then there was the ordering of events: I may be wrong but I'm sure the part with the mother of all spiders was in TTT, not ROTK.

So why is the general consensus among all but the most die-hard Tolkien fans that the films were a success? There's a list as long as your arm, but I believe that Peter Jackson's vision of Middle Earth was just about as good a portrayal as I could imagine. I'm sure this has all been discussed on other forums, so without going over old ground, here's a basic list of what I believe will be fundamental for a successful conversion LFB, which is true to the SPIRIT of the books. (I'm assuming here that the intention is to film them as separate movies...)

1. TC needs the internal conflict provided by his leprosy, as this is crucial to his unbelief.
2. His unbelief itself - if TC is a "willing" hero in a film conversion, then that would FUNDAMENTALLY alter the nature of the story, rather than changing certain plotting elements.

Anything else will be at the whim and mercy of the screenwriter/director/time constraints/plotting and pacing requirements. All we can hope for is that any conversion is true to the spirit of the books themselves. There's so much narrative and history that would be difficult to incorporate.

We all have our wish-lists of course...heres mine

The opening scene in FOTR was superb: a grand scale, fantastic CGI, which helped to establish the history of Middle Earth. For LFB, instead of an opening shot of a grey, gaunt man walking down a street, I would love to see something similar portraying much of the lands early history. Berek Halfland could be established as a great hero from the past, as well as the old Lords... and imagine a CGI rendition of Foul and Kevin Landwaster initiating the ritual of desecration... we could have so much of the Lands history portrayed, if done properly it could really draw the viewer in to some of the central themes before we even get introduced to TC... the beauty of the land, the dedication of it's servants, the despair of Kevin Landwaster, the despite of Lord Foul...

I'm going to stop now because I'm in danger of rambling and getting away from the point of my own argument... maybe some of this should go in a different thread.

In conclusion... as long as the film sticks to the spirit of the book(s), I think that's all we should expect, otherwise we're heading for a big let-down if our own personal fave scenes are excluded.

Cheers

I totally agree with you. However, I think the spirit of the books is totally tied into the rape of Lena. It's not my favorite scene, actually it's not in my top 100,000 favorite scenes. But it is desperately important to the rest of the series.
in LOTR you could leave out Tom Bombadil, and we can all get on with our lives.
Let's say the dream interpreter that lives near glimmermere isn't around... no big deal, life goes on. But the rape of Lena has so much impact that the films would be unable to stick to the spirit of the books without including that.

In importance it would be not dissimilar to cutting out the bit where Gandalf shows up. So much else would have to be removed as a consequence that it wouldn't even be the same story.

Yeah...I think we can all agree on what a Book-to-Movie conversion of the Chronicles should include. I'll be curious to see what they leave out, though. Since it'll have to be something.-jay

Terrific post, Jeherrin! I'm also willing to accept changes as long as the spirit of the books is maintained. Now who wants to define what that spirit is?

You mentioned some of the "superfluous" things in the LOTR books that weren't essential to the story (with all due respect to fans of the books, of course). But in terms of the Chronicles, I agree with Jemcheeta and CovJr that something like the rape of Lena is definitely not superfluous: if any event is essential to the story of Thomas Covenant, this one is it. It doesn't have to be shown in literal, graphic detail on the big screen, but it needs to be present in the film in one way or another. And I certainly don't call the rape a "personal fave scene" in the books. It is simply an inescapable part of the Chronicles.

You're correct, though, to say that the filmmakers can and will do what it takes to shape the source material into a movie that they think will work best. But if they don't believe the rape is an irreducible, essential element, then I would have to wonder what and whose story exactly are they telling? The Chronicles of Saltheart Foamfollower, The Unhomed? (Not that that wouldn't be neat. )

As far as the opening scenes, I'm not enthusiastic about the idea of showing the Land's heroic past right away. That's just aping what Jackson did. For what it's worth, my own view is they should immediately establish Covenant's character and the "reality" of his world. Think a "Wizard of Oz" effect for grown-ups: show Covenant's bitter existence as outcast in the unforgiving real world before bringing him and the viewer into the dazzling Technicolor brilliance of the Land. I think it's all-important that you first create an emotional connection between the viewer and Covenant. This is the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, not the Chronicles of Berek Halfhand. If the audience doesn't first understand and sympathize with Covenant's plight, then he's in trouble. He can't compete with Berek.

I can just see the shot of covenant on kevin's watch, the camera so close that you can't see the edge of the cliff. Then he approaches the edge, and looks out... pan across the miles and miles of the Land's beauty.... siiiigh

Jeherrin Wrote:

Did I miss Tom Bombadill, or the scouring of the shire?

Great Post Jeherrin!
--- However I DID Miss Tom Bombadill and desperately hoped they would add him to the extended version.

I have a tendency to get attached to the characters. When I read -- a movie playes before my eyes on a wonderful panaramic screen. My expectations are high but I would love to see a movie in the theaters none the less! [they will definately need to enhance the overall saturation in the colors of the land] Great comparison to Dorothy in greyscale to the land of OZ in color!

When I first looked up a website about Stephen R. Donaldson (many years ago) there was a very small question regarding who would SRD want to play Covenant (about the time he wrote the books). Does anyone remember who it was? They even had a picture of this actor with the words coming from him saying "Don't touch me".
See how many older timers we have here...

Thanks for the replies.

Just to clarify, I think we ALL agree that the rape is a fundamental part of the books that couldn't be missed out or glossed over. It'll be interesting to see exactly how it's handled...

Re opening scene - I must admit I do like the idea of a sweeping panormaic view from the top of Kevin's Watch. You're quite right, my initial post contained a shot probably TOO similar to LOTR - I just remember being totally blown away by it, and I think any Covenant movie needs something similar to really hook the viewer in - remember there'll be an awful lot of people who go to see the film who won't have read the books.

There's another thread somewhere by a guy called Saltheart (I think) who started writing a script a few months ago. Initial draft, he was up to the point where TC reaches Revelstone. Screen time? 2.5 hours. Even he was aware that there would have to be a LOT of very heavy editing to get the film down to 3 hours.

So... we can expect to lose a lot of scenes.... and also characters... and just hope and pray that the guys who have bought the film rights (who apparently are big fans of the books) can come up with a knock 'em dead script that the production companies really buy into.

In closing... we as fans virtually know the books off by heart. When (if) the film is released, I think it would be a big mistake going to see the film and picking out any discrepancies and deviations from the book text. It would totally spoil what might be an otherwise enjoyable experience. In my earlier post, I mentioned the invisible Tom Bombadil in FOTR, as the guy I was sitting next to in the theatre gave a virtual running commentary on what had been cut out. "Tom Bombadil! They've left out Tom Bombadil!" Hmmm... take a chill pill and enjoy the movie.

Having said all that, if they leave out the Celebration of Spring... why I oughta...!!!