Kevin's Watch

Frankly, I don't consider LFB, TIW, and TPTP to be really "film" material. They are mostly introspection, and a lot of walking, punctuated with occasional action. There isn't a lot of visualization beyond (and pardon the harsh words, as I know SRD's descriptions of things are detailed and frequently quite moving) "This is really pretty, and this is why it's pretty". In other words, it mostly states "this is how things are."

The 2nd chronicles, on the other hand, are much more action oriented, and I think suitable for movies. There is still a great deal of introspection, but there is a lot that actually "happens". Plus, most of it happens visually, outside of the heads of the characters.

This doesn't mean that we pretend the 1st Chronicles don't exist. They are vital as back-story. Some of the info can be presented at the beginning of the film as a prologue, similar to the novels' "What has gone before" sections. Other aspects can be treated in flashback, maybe some as dialog, as they become relevant to the action of the current story.

In some respects, this is how the Star Wars saga was presented. I won't get into whether George Lucas "really" envisioned the whole series prior to Episode 1/IV - "A New Hope". For now, let's just assume he did. Had "The Phantom Menace" been the first story produced on film, the franchise would never have flown. By starting where he did, Lucas picked up the story at an action point - someplace where something was clearly wrong with the universe, and change really needed to be made.

By starting with The Wounded Land, we give the world something to watch that is worth watching as much as thinking about.

I disagree.
The Wounded Land had the impact that it did because we got to know how healthy, beautiful and respected the Land was.

To jump in at WL would just make it an "Save the Whales" type movie, imo.
(A noble cause by itself to be sure, but far less to those of us who know the books)

Which brings up the whole "make the movie for everyone" aspect.

Whatever they do it's going to suck.
imho.

Maybe you could make a movie of the first Chronicles, but I don't think you would be able to get the market to justify it. The point about a "movie for everyone" being diluted has some merit; however, that is why I suggested starting later in the series, but with an introductory segment.

This way, you can keep the integrety of the story, and hook a larger audience who could then have an interest in seeing the earlier work filled out. 2nd Chronicles may as well have been called "The Chronicles of Linden Avery". In addition to the action elements I mentioned above, I also feel that Linden as a central character has much broader appeal.

Save the Nicor perhaps?

"Save the Nicor"? I kinda like that! Seriously, however, though people do like "Save the whales" plotlines, I don't think 2nd chronicles falls into that category. Sure, they need to save the Land (and the whole "world", for that matter), but to do that they need to grow as characters, too.

We might want to start thinking about casting, as well.

I think you have to start with LFB. How else do you explain the fact that Thomas Covenant is an Unbeliever? Kinda crucial stuff.

Hi Myste,

Covenant's Unbelief was established very early on, and can easily be handled in the prolgue, as was/can the beauty of the land, desecration, and the nature of white gold.

I see the prologue as partially voiceover by Covenant, with flashes of scenes he is describing. We don't need alot of detail, as the Land is new to Linden as well as the audience, and they can learn about Earthpower and relevant details along with Linden as the issues come up in the story.

I know what you mean, IS--I just hate voiceovers. The only one I didn't quite hate was Cate Blanchett's for LOTR--but I still almost hated it. It's sort of like a rule one my profs had: check your parentheticals carefully. If they're important enough to include in the paper at all, there's probably some way of including them non-parenthetically. If the info in the voiceover is so crucial, then there should be a way of including it in the film without using the voiceover in the first place.

To me, that means you make LFB.

"Picking up a movie from an action point" is a good idea for my generation ( I'm 18 ) because we were brought up with action-packed movies and in my case stories as well. For most people my age it would be difficult to watch a movie like Lord Foul’s Bane because there would be a lot of intellectual activity going on, which I’m sad to say many teens won’t understand or won’t be able to sit through. However, I’m of the opinion that Donaldson is one of the greatest epic fantasy writers of all time and if anyone thinks his books move slowly they should read Tolkien’s work! I’m sure that a LFB movie will be great if it has the right people behind it.

My suggestion:

Start the movie off with Covenant's wife discovering the infection on his hand. That would get my attention.

It doesn't need to be a voice over, that is just the most efficient device. Unfortunately, I don't think we can dedicate a whole movie to LFB, or even the 1st Chronicles, and have any hope of getting the rest made.

I believe that there is no way that anyone can understand if you start with wounded land..... how in heaven's name anyone could think that is beyond me... so please..... if you love the story..... let it be told as it is...... COMPLETELY aight thanx

Aeltran Schnieder Evilbane

MY SUGGESTION!

have the sci-fi channel make it into 6 miniseries' of 6 hours each

like they did with DUNE, which, IMHO turned out stellar

also- get a topless angelina jolie to play linden.... or maybe eliza dushku... hmmm

Or even beter, a 12 hour miniseries, with two hours per book, shown once a week..it would cover an entire telivision season.

Now drew, that's just crazy talk!

I like it!

I like the idea in a sense, but I personally think the Dune miniseries turned out pretty badly. Whether or not it was as bad as Lynch's movie, is debateable, they were both pretty bad.

Face it folks, the movie screen (or TV screen) just can't deliver like a good, working imagination can. Not to mention that it "standardises" the experience. As soon as the movie is made, TC will forever after "look" like the actor who played him, even if the movies create popularity in an entirely new generation.

If there were no question of the economics of movies, of the importance of appeal, if they could be made simply for the sake of doing so, without caring how many people bought tickets etc. Then I'd say go for it. But no matter how good the movie, it is never good enough.

How would you like to pick over the TC movie the way we did over the Hitchhikers Guide one? I wouldn't.

--Avatar

How would you like to pick over the TC movie the way we did over the Hitchhikers Guide one? I wouldn't.

Oh great, now I've got that theme bouncing through my head again!

Actually, I kinda liked the movie. A little campy, but isn't that the point?

I'm not sure I'd mind picking over a TC movie. I heartily enjoyed complaining about LOTR, for example; I still enjoyed the movies, and have found that they haven't interfered much with my original perceptions of the books. I love the A&E Pride & Prejudice, and found that it actually enhanced the reading experience of a book I'd read several times already.

It's the mediocre adaptions with big name stars that ruin books for readers. Chrons will either have to be perfect, or perfectly awful, in order to be worth discussing. In the first instance, the movie might enhance, or at least complement, the books; in the second, it'll be so awful we'd have things to groan about forever. It all adds to the discourse, and how can that be a bad thing?

I disagree that going straight to the 2nd Chronicles would work.

Firstly everything would be lost in translation. The ideas that go through Covenant's mind about the Land being truly wounded would not be as significant if the lush beauty of it isn't shown.

Also I resent the idea that the first Chronicles don't have action. I really don't want to miss the Illearth War and Mhoram's battle with Satansfist just to see Covenant on a Giantship for three hours after walking around dead trees and being bitten by spiders. No disrepect to the 2nd Chronicles, but I'm just trying to illustrate how it would seem to non-readers if they skipped the first Chronicles..

Sgt. Mhoram wrote: Also I resent the idea that the first Chronicles don't have action. I really don't want to miss the Illearth War and Mhoram's battle with Satansfist just to see Covenant on a Giantship for three hours after walking around dead trees and being bitten by spiders.

Well, I do love The One Tree, but that's FUNNY!

I agree, there's a fair amount of action in the first Chronicles - enough to satisfy an impatient, paying audience.

I agree wiht teh OP --the first chrons could be handled exactly the the LOTR prologue, and if done right it wouldn't take much footage at all to convey the unearthly beauty of the land.

The Wounded Land stands pretty well on its own. Nassic and Sunde rprovide opportunities to explain earthpower, Linden meets most things anew. The Stonemight is clearly a Very Bad Thing regardless of tis origin.

The Haruchai stand aloen pretty well; the Clave is horrifying even if the lords they replaced ar eonly hinted at.

Really, only the sur-jherrin and Covenant's Caamora owuld be problematic. (And maybe the Dead of Andelain--though that could theoretically be skipped entirely)