Kevin's Watch

I mean--assuming for the moment that the folks who've bought the film rights (1) Actually try and made the movies, and (2) Don't butcher it but make a sincere effort.

How can that be done? For example, how do you portray the backstory of Thomas Covenant himself? And since we're talking about (presumably) a series of movies rather than a miniseries, what gets cut? Or put it another way--what absolutely must be included?

The writing team of Boyens, Walsh and Jackson omitted things like Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire as well as Ghan-Buri-Ghan and Radaghast the Brown. Yet what remained was clearly LOTR and the vast majority of fans more-or-less approved (or at least forgave).

What might a similar writing team accomplish with The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant?

A mighty question.

Now what I see as a problem is SRD's writing technique. He stated it several times methinks that he never ever writes anything into his story if it is not necessary to the storyline. That is why we know so little about the past, environment, geography etc. of the Land and the rest of the Earth: if he doesn't need it, he doesn't think about it.
So in conclusion: IMHO nigh to nothing could be cut from the story without damaging the coherence and comprehension of the plots and counterplots and emotions and driving-forces.

The fact is that if you pare a 400-page novel down to a two-hour movie, you have to cut over 90% of what’s there.

One thing that American moviemakers don’t seem to get (or, they get it but just don’t care) is that an average-length novel cannot be reduced to a single movie without missing most of what’s in there. The length of writing that’s ideal to be directly adapted to a two-hour movie is the novella, or even a long short story. Many of the most successful adaptations of written works to the screen are those of shorter pieces of fiction. Stephen King’s works are an example.

The Brits, for instance, seem to understand this, and when they film things like Pride & Prejudice, they typically do them as 12-hour miniseries. That’s the length needed to capture a novel. American financed and/or produced versions of things like TLOTR and Harry Potter have to skip almost everything in order to be squeezed into two or three hours per film.

What I’d like to see (one day) is a long series version of TLOTR, where the whole novel is filmed. You wouldn’t have (or need) the $100,000,000 production values.

I think this approach would be much better suited to TCOTC than the bigscreen formula would be. First of all, there’s no way to make a mainstream hit out of TCOTC. Women (young women) drive movie ticket sales, and a movie centered on a leprous rapist is never going to be a big movie hit. So don’t go for that. If crap like Xena and Babylon 5 can thrive with 0.5 Neilsen ratings on SciFi, so could a Covenant series.

Whatever format the works would be adapted for, they would only ever have a niche audience of ~1% of the populace or less. It makes sense to use a venue where that can constitute a success rather than a dismal failure.

Thaale wrote:One thing that American moviemakers don’t seem to get (or, they get it but just don’t care) is that an average-length novel cannot be reduced to a single movie without missing most of what’s in there.

Perhaps some others "don't seem to get" that a movie is not the same thing as a book just told in a different medium.

If it captures the moods and feelings of the story, if it manages to show some of the more important moments (the ones that you say 'I wish I could see that in a movie'), and if it is entertaining, I would call it successful. In other words, you should judge a move adaptation the way you would judge, say, someones' sketches or paintings or music which is inspired by the book. It's enough that it captures a 'true' essence of the book - not the entirity of the book.

That being said, I think what any TC adaptation needs to be is the opposite of the Lord of the Rings. It needs to be more minimalist, punctated by small moments of details. It's a story about people, and it's only a story about things in so far as those things effect people. If you fill this movie with eye candy, it won't have the right impact, and besides, there's nothing in the story to draw from to create the eye candy - except for a few special, distinct, important things, which need to stand out for exactly that reason.

Also, it's a story about defending the beauty of the Earth. So it needs to be filled with natural wonders, not man-made ones. The people of the Land live simply - there are no gawky testaments to Man's ability to build. Revelstone is the notable exception, and it needs to stand out in exactly that way, so that it has meaning as a Gift from the Giants.

That being said, I agree a longer adaptation, like a miniseries, fits Covenent a lot better than a movie. Not just because it is longer. But because a miniseries is a smaller budget spread over a bigger project, and this result in an adaptation that meets what I said above - more minimal, more nature, less eye candy, concetrate on characters and acting.

Thaale,

I understand where you are coming from and it does make sense. Say producers opted to film the Chrons as a television series rather than feature flim (s). You could have a committment of at least one season, say 20 episodes with just the first book.
This would allow the script writers to be more true to the book without having to cut a lot of necessary material. I, for one, think the TC backstory is critical. I remember SRD's description of the leperasarim (sp?) had a significant impact on me. TC's psychological state is essential to his actions in the Chrons and in a film a backstory would be merely glanced over.
In addtion, it is important to get the audience not to hate TC too much for the rape, being ineffectual and weak, etc. I think that an important challenge in the films/series would be getting the audience NOT to accept the land is real (at first). The audience needs to grow to accept the land as TC grows. I think if an audience is too accepting, they may dislike TC so much as jsut stop watching. I think SRD delivers this doubt well in his writing, but it is an entirely different on screen.
So, I think that yeah, the Chrons. might be better off filmed as an ongoing tv series. The only thing that concerns me is writers deviating from the story and adding something ridculous to get ratings.
-Avy

The other issue too is getting the commitment from a network to televise the entire story. Babylon 5 had a very definative 5-year story arc, but was cancelled during the 4th season. What we ended up with was a rushed end to the story in the 4th season, and a very weak 5th season when the show was picked up by Sci-Fi. TCTC in many ways needs a longer format, but between leprosy, rape, and a really unlikeable main character, I think it'd be difficult to sell it as a series.

Wayfriend wrote:

Thaale wrote:
One thing that American moviemakers don’t seem to get (or, they get it but just don’t care) is that an average-length novel cannot be reduced to a single movie without missing most of what’s in there.

Perhaps some others "don't seem to get" that a movie is not the same thing as a book just told in a different medium.

Gee, you think? Maybe that was considered too obvious to mention.

Many book adaptations fail because they’re not carefully pruned down to capture the essence of the book (or of any compelling or believable story), but are instead dissected hurriedly with only the meat (actions scenes) retained, and everything else ending up being thrown away.

The Harry Potter books depend in part on the three main characters’ friendship. But none of this comes across in the movies, because the characters never have time to just be together as they do in the books. They’re always being rushed to a quidditch match or an encounter with a Dementor or something.

Similarly, although the TLOTR movies jettisoned much of the book’s dialogue and byplay between the characters (do Merry and Pippin ever talk to any non-hobbits?) there were gratuitous action scenes added and extended. A minor skirmish in the Chamber of Records becomes a full pitched battle with a cave troll and orcs tearing their way through the Company. Do these action movies retain the spirit of the original? IMO, no. Do they find their own different but also coherent and important message? Again, IMO, no.

The same thing would happen with a TCOTC movie. You wouldn’t see why Covenant and Foamfollower were unlikely but close friends. Those scenes on the boat and during the quest for the Staff would be among the first to go.

But then later things would depend on this close friendship that had never been satisfactorily established or accounted for, and the moviegoer unfamiliar with the books would be wondering where that came from.

Avytaya wrote:

The only thing that concerns me is writers deviating from the story and adding something ridculous to get ratings.

Well, that seems certain to happen no matter what.

One factor that is at work is that there’s nothing in it for screenwriters to faithfully adapt an existing work. You don’t enhance your reputation or your ego very much that way.

Even if you don’t get a long-term commitment from a network, you just go ahead. The producers of shows like Lost and 24 probably only got 13 episodes at first. If the show tanks long before the story is finished, well, then, it just remains unfinished.

Thaale wrote: Many book adaptations fail because they’re not carefully pruned down to capture the essence of the book (or of any compelling or believable story), but are instead dissected hurriedly with only the meat (actions scenes) retained, and everything else ending up being thrown away.

Or worse. Think "I, Robot". It's relation to the book is that it has the word "robot" in it. Might be an okay movie, bit it is certainly very bad as an adaptation.

So I totally agree with you here. But if your stance is "shrinking is bad period", then I would have to disagree.

Just dealing with Lord Foul's Bane for now...

Thomas Covenant himself needs to be set up, as a man and writer and leper. The divorce and his white gold wedding band must be established, although I'd argue not all at once. In fact, I'd stretch a lot of those details along the whole of the film, told in flashback (and methinks said flashbacks should have muted colors, as opposed to the rich vibrant beauty of the Land a la LOTR or the recent Peter Pan).

Actually transporting Covenant to the Land should be very, very surreal--the nightmare image of Drool Rockworm and the hideous sense that some Other is present as well. But Covenant is rescured by Lena, without recalling precisely what message he's supposed to bear to Revelstone, just snippets. Enough to emphasize his disorientation yet convince everyone how bad the news is. His reaction that no one even knows what leprosy is, and the (to him) torture of this fantasy really needs highlighting. In fact, he needs to be virtually insane when the rape takes place.

The trip to Revelstone should show Covenant as still in shock, still getting flashes of memory as he tries to sort through all this. I'm unsure about the attack on the Wraiths in Andelain. My instincts say this needs to end up in the extended dvd. More essential is getting Covenant to Saltheart Foamfollower and thence to the glory that is Revelstone.

Once there, Prothall and Mhoram and Bannor are the characters that are truly vital. It is now we hear for the first time Lord Foul's full message as Covenant remembers every word. Soon after, the Quest for the Staff of Law must commence.

From this point, we need some flashes of Drool Rockworm as the antagonist. I'd favor moving some of his actions to this part of the story. Next up the rescue of Pietten and the visit with the Ranyhyn, including the essential fact that Covenant--remembering it all, and full of guilt--answers the rearing the great horses with a promise for Lena.

Hence on to Mount Thunder. Frankly, I'd cut the finding of the second ward as well as the Fire Lions. The success of winning the Staff and summoning the Ranyhyn then Covenant returns to "his" world.

I think that might make a movie under three hours long.

On the subject of Covenant's divorce, I do not believe going into detail (or indeed, even showing it at all) is necessary - it seems to me that Covenant's bitterness when he tells Lena that he 'had a wife, once', would be enough.

The divorce has more relevance for the series than just for his bitterness, Murrin. The whole wedding-ring issue, the elements in the second book, the second chronicles . . . it does need to be detailed.

Let's not expect a movie to capture all that we feel/think is Grand within Donaldson's epic.
We have to squeeze the essentials from the books.
Sacrifice details for what we still want the story to tell the viewers.

---------
A man, an author, a creator, struck by an illness that makes it important for him to survive to reject one's own illusions, foolish hopes, naive dreams; that isolates him from touch, people, love; that makes him a pariah.

That man has an accident, falls unconcsious, and is transported to a faery land, where he gains healt, touch, sensations... everything that makes him think his very creative mind is trying to fly away from reality into a dream.

Taken to be a hero, a savior by this land's inhabitants for some reason*, he rejects this idolatry, this other way for his mind to let him think he's still loved, important, needed.

Through this rejection he causes harm and destruction on people, although fictitious to him, he has come to feel for, as his dream doesn't seem to come to an end. (How can he feel for people he thinks are imaginary? Well, don't we ourselves feel for characters like Covenant, Elena, Mhoram, etc?! No contradiction.)

He must fight a stereotypical villain -- as an author he knows such characters, since he wrote much about them in his book(s). He mocks this manichean world where all is black and white, as in stories, supporting his conjecture that this is all a fantasy in his mind. As a writer, he knows this litterary genre, and recognizes it as such (he can himself be a fantasy writer... what genre was Covenant writing before his sickness?)

But little by little, he'll learn to care enough -- reality or not -- to battle evil in this strange world, not only to save it, but to save his inner-self, for he can recognize some link between the two (or at least between the two battles).

In the end he comes out victorious, for all, for himself, for his sanity. He still doesn't know if that strange land was real or not, but he doesn't care anymore, it's impact was real enough, and it changed him forever.
-------

The outline above seems an outrage to what we love about TCTC (seems? it is!)
But I think it's a realistic way of making a movie happen, and a good scenarist (obviously not me!) can create within it some of the themes we love so much about D's story.

Of course, that's not what I, as a TCTC fan, would like to see; I'd like the whole story, all the characters I love, to be put on screen with all their importance.
But I don't think it can happen that way, hollywoodwise.

Do we need the rape? I don't think so.
Do we need Elena? Oh, I love her character so much... Must find a way... Need the rape now?... hmmm...
Do we need the ring? No, I don't think so!
Do we need the white gold? Ditto.
Do we need three movies, or a mini-series? Na, it can be in one movie.

So, to quote the Shadows in Babylon 5: "What do you want?"
And KISS

Try it, write a 15-20 synopsis of what your movie(s) would be.
How would you pitch it?

* "for some reason": doesn't have to be the half-hand even, nor the ring. Just appearing, say, at Kevin's Watch could be sufficient, or a start. Sure, it requires much rewriting of D's storyline, kills off much of the entertwinings of the saga, but it's part of the price to pay.

/edit: Ok, of course, the movie shouldn't look too much like a cross between Lord of the Rings and Army of Darkness.
So Bruce Campbell shouldn't play Thomas Covenant

As much as I would love to see this series filmed, I just don't think that it can be pulled off. And if it is attempted, the end result cannot be anything but bad, as much to my dismay as possible.

I keep thinking of the film adaptation of Stephen King's 'Apt Pupil'. If you have read the short story, you know and understand why the kid acted like he did. The old man was in his head, plain and simple. In the book you understood the power that the old man had over him, and why he held this power over him, but none of that was portrayed in the film. Everything major that is going on in this series is in TCs head, his guilt, emotions, 'bargains'. None of this is vocalized or verbalized. As for a 'voice over', one movie that comes to mind where this was done about as best as can be (IMO) was 'One Hour Photo', with Robin Williams. If a voice over has ever gotten into a character's mind in a believable way, it was done in that movie.

Ths kid in 'Apt Pupil' just came off looking like a punk with a Nazi fetish. Nothing was covered as in the book, it was extremely toned down. Even the ending when in the book he went down in a hail of bullets on top of the hill was not put in the movie. (There goes the rape scene).

In the film version of TCOTC, Covenant will come off as a pissed off leper who hates the world, and when it is time for the gradual changes to his belief in the Land, it will be too choppy / sudden to be believed.

Anyway...that is just how I feel about this. I would definately see the movie, but it would be hard to imagine it being anything that I would walk out of the theater feeling good about. Just my opinion...

Steve