The ring problem, and the solution....

Post by **lomillialor** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 7:34 pm

Here's one idea I have for solving the issue that TC's ring is too similar to Lord of the Rings....

In the TC movie, as TC slips off to unconsciousness after being struck by a police car (and is therefore about to wake up in his dream of the Land), they could have TC stare with fluttering lids for a few moments at a nearby TV shop (i.e. Circuit City) where he sees a TV in the window showing a clip from the movie Lord of The Rings (maybe the scene at the end where the ring is being fought over).

The idea here is that by having TC see the clip from the LoTR as he slips into unconsciousness, it helps create the dream of the Land and the White Gold ring and Wild Magic. The coincidence is now fully resolved. And even then, whether it is a dream is still open to interpretation.

So, instead of running away from the issue. They should acknowledge Tolkien's influence on SRD and Science Fantasy and leave SRD's work as it is.

There is no reason to get rid of the White Gold ring in order to have a movie. There must be many ways to reconcile this similarity between TC and LoTR. This post is one example. Maybe others here have other deas?

Make the movie! Keep the ring! Kick Foul's butt!

Website · Post by **The Somberlain** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 7:59 pm

To be honest, the ring-as-magic-talisman concept is a pretty common one in all fantasy. Rings often summon genies, for instance. The studios are being very shortsighted (and probably underestimating their audiences) in saying that the presence of a ring makes it too much like LOTR to succeed.

Post by **matrixman** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 3:31 am

I'm sorry, lomillialor, but I dislike the idea of having a scene that pays obvious homage to LOTR. Personally, I would prefer a Covenant movie that stands on its own, with no association at all with Peter Jackson's LOTR films. Maybe that's idealistic BS, but I just don't want anything in a Covenant movie to be construed as aping Jackson. I want the audience to come into the Land and appreciate it on its own terms, rather than be pre-conditioned by a visual reference to LOTR. You believe this "resolves" the matter? I think it just cheapens SRD and the Chronicles. I'm sorry if I sound rude about all this, lomillialor, but you're touching on something that I feel strongly about.

And if I can't have strong feelings about the Chronicles, then why am I here?

Post by **lomillialor** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 3:37 am

Matrixman wrote:I'm sorry, lomillialor, but I dislike the idea of having a scene that pays obvious homage to LOTR. Personally, I would prefer a Covenant movie that stands on its own, with no association at all with Peter Jackson's LOTR films. Maybe that's idealistic BS, but I just don't want anything in a Covenant movie to be construed as aping Jackson. I want the audience to come into the Land and appreciate it on its own terms, rather than be pre-conditioned by a visual reference to LOTR. You believe this "resolves" the matter? I think it just cheapens SRD and the Chronicles. I'm sorry if I sound rude about all this, lomillialor, but you're touching on something that I feel strongly about.

And if I can't have strong feelings about the Chronicles, then why am I here?

I understand your point.

Maybe you are right.

Even so, this is just one idea. I'm sure there are others.

The main point is that I don't think the ring really is a problem.

Post by **Akasri** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 11:53 am

I agree. I think it would be a mistake to reference the LOTR in any way. Enough people will wonder about the similarity as it is - no need to put it out in front of them.

I think the fact that it's a powerful talisman can be played effectively and if done properly it can work without seeming too much like LOTR. It's his *wedding ring*, and it happens to be made of a rare metal that has power in the Land. It's not like someone created a Ring of Power (tm) and he found it.

Website · Post by **The Somberlain** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 1:27 pm

Another reason why the ring shouldn't be a problem just occurred to me.

In LFB - certainly the first half - the ring doesn't actually play that huge a part. It's important, certainly, when he meets the old man (but even there we don't really think of the RING being important; it's the value of it to Covenant), then when he meets Atiaran, but after that we don't really see it until the Celebration of Spring. Then not until Foamfollower gives him the clingor. After that it's more prominent, but by that stage we've seen enough features of the Land to realise that the story is about more than a ring.

Which means that I think the first of the films (if they were made) would be able to set up characters, plot, motivations etc. without having to emphasise the ring at every turn. Much of the focus in LFB is on the power within the Land, not the power from beyond the Arch of Time. The ring becomes more important as the Chronicles go on, but by that stage the film could well have been "accepted" by the audiences as a story in its own right, rather than having anything to do with LOTR.

Post by **matrixman** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 6:15 am

Excellent points by the Somberlain! I agree: if LFB plays out the way you suggest, then the audience should be able to recognize that this is a much different kind of story than LOTR.

I hope I didn't turn off lomillialor completely with my rant. I should explain that I came to the Chronicles with no LOTR preconceptions about it, as I had not read any Tolkien beforehand. That may be why the notion of dropping a LOTR reference into a TC movie bothers me so much: I didn't have some excerpt from LOTR dangling in my face on the first page of Lord Foul's Bane, therefore why should I accept having a clip from a LOTR movie stuck in my TC movie? I want a movie audience to be able to experience TC as I had experienced reading TC, with an open mind unencumbered by the baggage of Tolkien or anyone else.

Post by **variol son** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 10:18 am

I actually think that the ring is a more believable talisman of power in the chronicles than in Toliens work. In LOTR, the rings are really just random pieces of jewellery. Sure, a ring works well, but it could have just as easily been a stone, or a pendant.

However, SRD's use of the ring is different. It has to be a ring because it is the symbol of Covenant's marriage, of his old life with Joan, of everything that leprosy cost him. What the ring represents to Covenant, and the fact that he didn't throw it away, makes the use of a ring in the chronicles vitally important.

It couldn't really be anything else without dramatically affecting the story, whereas in LOTR it could, or so I think.

Post by **Nav** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 9:09 am

SRD was asked about this in Manchester (I should take a recorder to the FR tour and post a transcript like danlo does). He said that he did actually agonise over the ring whilst writing LFB, as he wanted to avoid links to LotR if necessary. In the end he decided that the Chronicles needed the ring more than LotR did. Tolkein could have written about a necklace, a talisman, a crown, anything.

Covenant needed the emotional connection to the source of his power, which could only really take the form of the ring given him by his estranged wife.

Post by **burgs** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:29 am

I don't believe that Tolkien could have worked with any old piece of jewelry. Rings symbolize oneness - there is no beginning or end, they just are one, whole, and, most importantly in Tolkien's work, they control.

You put a ring on someone's finger, and there is an element of control at work (amongst many others). You can pull the ring off, sure, but it completely encompasses the finger it's on. Unlike a necklace, or a magic belt, which encompasses but can be unclasped.

Can you imagine Sauron controlling the Witch King of Angmar with both of them wearing necklaces, pendants, or tiaras?

Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:32 am

tiaras^

roflmao. :LOLS:

Post by **Xar** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 1:42 pm

Well, Tolkien also drew many elements for LotR from germanic sagas, as one of the reasons behind his writing LotR was, admittedly, to create a "mythology" for his country, which he felt was lacking. In fact, many of his short stories and drafts revolve around England (the dragon-hunter, for example).

In this context, drawing from germanic legends, the One Ring derives, as he acknowledged, from the Ring of the Nibelungs (sp?), an ancient germanic legend which Wagner later joined with the Volsung Saga in order to produce his best-known masterwork. So, you could say that in Tolkien's case, the choice of using a ring was deliberate in order to draw on ancient legends and in an effort to create a "mythology" with strong links to ancient mythologies.

Just my two cents

Post by **wayfriend** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 5:22 pm

Hmmm... are we forgetting that Tolkien didn't really set out to make a ring into the One Ring in the first place? In the beginning, it was just an oddity in the Hobbit. It only grew into a cornerstone of Middle-Earthology when Tolkien mined the Hobbit for a connection to the Lord of the Rings. So at the time that Tolkien 'chose' a ring, he probably wasn't thinking very much about anything, other than if it would fit in Bilbo's pocket.

Post by **burgs** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 6:03 pm

You're right, in that he mined the Hobbit for the ring, but don't forget that in his larger body of work the One Ring already existed, along with the nine, seven, and three.

Post by **drew** » Sat Oct 29, 2005 12:24 pm

So when JRRT wrote about Gollum's magic invisability ring in the Hobbit, did he already have the idea of the rings of power?--Just currious.

As far as trying not to make LFB look like LOTR on the big screen...the simpest solution, would be not to mention the ring too much...they could just talk about the White Gold.."You have white gold..";"He has white gold..";"That ring of yours, it's white gold.."
Things like that.

Post by **Akasri** » Sat Oct 29, 2005 5:35 pm

drew wrote:So when JRRT wrote about Gollum's magic invisability ring in the Hobbit, did he already have the idea of the rings of power?--Just currious.

From what I've read, no. He made is a simple invisibility ring and then later on when plotting out the LOTR, he decided to make the tie-in to the Hobbit.

It'll be interesting if they ever do a Hobbit live-action movie, if the effect of putting on the ring will be the same as in LOTR (windy, scary, spirit-like) or if that was just because the Nazgul were around in the trilogy.

Post by **burgs** » Sat Oct 29, 2005 10:45 pm

It's been a long time since I've buried my head in The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, et. al., but I'm 90% certain that the rings of power existed in his mythology prior to writing LOTR.

Post by **the bourgeois bee** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 12:56 pm

I think any TC film should be directed by peter jackson and have exactly the same design brief as LOTR. in fact, it should probably be called Thomas Covenant- Leper of the ring

Post by **wayfriend** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:20 pm

It seems it was "the ring problem" that did the movie in.

In the Gradual Interview was wrote:Jon Bernstein: Hi Stephen,
Too bad about the option expiring for a LFB movie, however I can't see it ever being made. The big issue to me would be Covenant's rape of Lena. I can't see a studio putting up money for a big budget fantasy film in which the hero is a rapist and taking the rape out would wreck the story. Did the people who originally optioned it ever discuss that with you?

Also is Mirror of her Dreams optioned? Of all your stuff those are the only two books that I can see being made into film.

Cheers
Jon
According to the producers who once held an option on "Covenant," the big stumbling block was not the rape of Lena: it was the ring. Any film or tv production based on "Covenant" would automatically be dismissed as a LOTR rip-off.

So far, no one has ever expressed an interest in obtaining an option on "Mordant's Need."

(03/06/2007)

Post by **Reave the Unjust** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:48 am

Yeah, I see the point.
It's a shame they can't let people make up their own minds about whether it's a rip 0ff.
I suppose they've got $$$$$$ to lose if it goes wrong.
I mean no-one would touch LOTR initially because it was so risky!

Of course money is the meaning of life, not the experience of being alive and enjoying it in all it's facets.
Joy, love, honour, loyalty, trust, truth, friendship, all these things and more that are present in the Covenant stories, they are all meaningless without moolah, right?
MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY!
Just saying it makes me feel so powerful!
Sorry, sarcasm overload........

As it happens, when I was first given "The One Tree" by a family friend, I thought it was bound to be one of the many generic fantasy-by-numbers that I'd stumbled across over the years (and then ran very fast in the opposite direction!).
I was certain it would be bad because I loved LOTR so much, nothing could compare.
[I even thought the Rings movies would be bad for the same reason: how could it match my dreams?]

Straight away I saw similarities (The One Ring, The One Tree etc), but to be fair I gave it a chance.
Suffice to say, I forgot these trifles after the first few chapters.
Loved it.
Got LFB.
Loved it (though TC scared me!).
Got the entire series!
Just glad I gave it that chance.

[Similarly the LOTR films; I loved them! Not perfect, but the Balrog scenes were right out of my imagination!]

But of course according to the studios, these movies would have to make money by dumbing it down, or not being too this, or being more of that. That is why it's hard to find a really good film now. The art of storytelling is being murdered by capitalism......

Oh dear, I've open the nutcase floodgates again!

Anyway, I wish they'd let us make up our own minds.

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

The ring problem, and the solution....

The ring problem, and the solution....