Nuts
CJRT wasn't going to live forever.
Spoilers Lord of the Rings TV series
- Thread starter Cyrus
- Start date
CJRT wasn't going to live forever.
I'm aware. Still sad.
The History of MIddle-Earth is, in a very extended way, an apology for the way that CJRT presented The Silmarillion. He thought the best way to do it would be to take the various manuscripts, some of which went back to 1916, and compile a single narrative. One part, "Of the Ruins of Doriath," was written whole cloth either by CJRT or Guy Gavriel Kay, who assisted CJRT in the compilation. The problem with the approach CJRT took is that JRRT changed his mind on aspects of his mythos in the fifty-plus years that he worked on the tales of the First Age, while in other places, like "The Fall of Gondolin," he'd simply never revisited after The Book of Lost Tales.
IMHO, what CJRT did is to be commended, not condemned. He made a coherent narrative out of fragments that spanned sixty years. Yet, I also understand people who think he went to far and inserted his own ideas too much into the published book. It's a valid position to take. For myself, I'd rather have a readable Silmarillion that, though difficult to read, is presented as a text for everyone, not a scholarly exploration of the evolution of the tale.
HoME, like I said, was CJRT's extended apology. Excepting the books that delve into The Lord of the Rings and other tangents like The Lost Road, he presents the manuscripts, as they developed so readers can see how the First Age developed across time. It's a fascinating insight into how a writer works and how ideas evolve. It's also a way for fans, who may have not liked what CJRT did with The Silmarillion, to make their own judgments about the correctness of CJRT's editorial work on the published book. But these aren't works for the casual Tolkien fan. And much as I love having books like Sigurd and Gudrun and The Fall of Arthur, because those are subjects that fascinate me beyond Tolkien, these aren't books for the casual reader, either. It's a balance.
So did these compiled version contain internal discrepancies? Or were they consistent with themselves? Additionally, when you say they were "written whole cloth", do you mean they didn't simply reprint the words written by JRR?
I agree with the sentiment about his compiling and giving us a coherent narrative, and I'm sad that he didn't do that earlier with the Great Tales of the First Age. I don't have a problem with him extrapolating or guessing what his father might have wanted or done, since I don't think there's anyone else that's even remotely qualified to do that but him. He has been a part of this damn near all his life. If he wanted to guess where his father might have gone and added a little of himself into the work, I'd have been okay with that.
Even as a fan I can't get into the History Of Middle-Earth too much. I own a couple, as well as the Book of Lost Tales 2, and I got the latter since it contains the most complete version of the Fall Of Gondolin. I think my problem is there's too much editorial intrusion, as well as way too many versions of things I don't think we need to see. Some of it seemed to be that a character had this name in version A, a different name in version B with few, if any, changes to the narrative, like the character had cup of tea in this one, but didn't in that one.
It's a damned difficult read when, in some cases, it's literally a fragment of three sentences. But I guess he published them at a time when people were super interested in that. I do feel like the estate, in seeking to keep the money rolling in, will eventually let other writers to play in Middle Earth. I can only hope that we first get the Great Tales and that whoever they get is someone of quality that cares enough to do the research and piece together a quality story that meshes well with the rest of the stories. I know it would be difficult, particularly with Galadriel, but I guess someone will just have to say "We're going with this version". I just with it had been Christopher Tolkien.
Del Toro developing a middle-earth series would be a dream come true. Especially if it was an adaptation of The Silmarillion.
Ian McKellen is open to returning as Gandalf but no one has asked him yet.
Hopefully Amazon includes him in some form, even if it's just for an episode.
Talking to Graham Norton today on BBC Radio 2, McKellen responded to the host asking about the prospects of another actor playing Gandalf by saying, “What do you mean, another Gandalf?”
He went on to say, “I haven’t said yes because I haven’t been asked. But are you suggesting that someone else is going to play it? Gandalf is over 7,000 years old, so I’m not too old.”
He went on to say, “I haven’t said yes because I haven’t been asked. But are you suggesting that someone else is going to play it? Gandalf is over 7,000 years old, so I’m not too old.”
Hopefully Amazon includes him in some form, even if it's just for an episode.
It looks like there's a chance the series will focus on a young Pre-LOTR Aragorn. It seems like Aragorn has a pretty deep history, so other than maybe Gandalf, he is probably the character with the most prequel potential.
A Shyamalanised TLOTR, anyone ? At least PJ didn’t make either of his Tolkien projects into a gorefest, as might have happened.
A Tim Burtonised Tolkien would be...interesting.
There's definitely some stuff to work with in Aragorn's history, particularly his days in service of Gondor under the alias Thorongil, when he led a successful assault agains the Corsairs' home port of Umbar, and became the target of Denethor's jealousy. But I don't think there's enough there for a full, ongoing series, which means they'd have to (gulp) make up some stuff to fill in the blanks.
Given the Hollywood fondness for lurve, it would not surprise me if they made the most of texts like “A fragment of the Lay of Aragorn and Arwen”. Scenes set in Lothlorien are pretty much guaranteed. And they might even raid the Numenorean material, like the “Akallabeth”, for hints. Scenes set in Gondor and Rohan, and featuring their Stewards and Kings, could be used to hint at, and build up, Aragorn’s character. A lot of stuff takes place between his birth in 2931 Third Age, and his meeting with the Hobbits in 3018, as the lists of Rangers, Stewards, and Kings show. A determined and well-informed bunch of script-writers would not have much trouble finding material for a film about him. And they might do worse than read some fan fics. Some of the material in the Akallabeth and related material could be used, and dramatised, to provide answers to questions about his origins, and about why he is important. The difficulty would be, in providing dialogue.
There's about 8 decades of life to talk about, only a portion of it was mentioned in Tolkien's work. Besides, it's a fantasy world, EVEYTHING there is made up.
I am in complete agreement! However, The Hobbit movies did not get better with each successive entry. They sucked, and sucked ... then sucked some more. Even the LOTR movies ran out of steam during Twin Towers. If not for sweet Éowyn, I would've had to dismiss the film, entirely. Return of the King was really boring and kind of a mess, especially towards the end. "The Fellowship of the Rings" benefitted mostly from how charming and quaint it all was. The misty forests, the medieval settings ... it damn near put me in the mood for my first-ever Renaissance Fair (which I still haven't been on).
So, when Pete's got this franchise that had various published books to base it all on and official illustrators that worked on those books at hand ... and STILL delivers a body of mediocrity and boredom, it makes one wonder what stretching it all out into a series is meant to achieve? The cure for insomnia? There's so much hype regarding this franchise and what it's based on, that it disappoints me, greatly, that I can't find myself as infatuated with it. It's just "OK." It's sight better than King Arthur with Keira Knightley in it and THERE was a story with PASSION!!!
So, when Pete's got this franchise that had various published books to base it all on and official illustrators that worked on those books at hand ... and STILL delivers a body of mediocrity and boredom, it makes one wonder what stretching it all out into a series is meant to achieve? The cure for insomnia? There's so much hype regarding this franchise and what it's based on, that it disappoints me, greatly, that I can't find myself as infatuated with it. It's just "OK." It's sight better than King Arthur with Keira Knightley in it and THERE was a story with PASSION!!!
Two Towers, not Twin Towers. The towers in question are decidedly not twins, nor are they in NYC.
I don't think Peter Jackson is involved in this, so you can't really pe-judge it based on his movies.
It's also an original story, so it's not going to be stretching anything out, it'll be a story specifically made to be told over however many episodes it ends up being.
Peter Jackson just had everything on his side making the LOTR pictures ... so many resources, so much material ... so much money!!! ... and STILL he couldn't deliver. There's no excusing that, there really isn't. It's one thing to have delivered everything a LOTR fan could've hoped and then have the movie fail, anyway. Who could fault him, then? But he made an inferior product, even when he was handed a pooch that couldn't be screwed. This new LOTR: The Completely New & Original Series will probably fare no better. In fact, I'd wager that most of the charm of the original LOTR movies will be noticeably absent in this offering. It will likely be much more action-oriented and many liberties will be taken. I'm confident that it will have a strong start and weak finish.
I absolutely love the LOT movies, and enjoyed The Hobbit movies to a slightly lesser degree, so I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I will confess that of the two fantasy adaptations Amazon is working on I'm more interested in The Wheel of Time, since that's only been seen on screen in one short, poorly made pilot episode, while Middle Earth has gotten 9 movies. I honestly didn't even realize until I was writing this post that there had been that many Middle Earth movies now. We've had the animated The Hobbit, Lord of The Rings, and The Return of King, and Peter Jackson's LOTR and The Hobbit trilogies.
I will confess that of the two fantasy adaptations Amazon is working on I'm more interested in The Wheel of Time, since that's only been seen on screen in one short, poorly made pilot episode, while Middle Earth has gotten 9 movies. I honestly didn't even realize until I was writing this post that there had been that many Middle Earth movies now. We've had the animated The Hobbit, Lord of The Rings, and The Return of King, and Peter Jackson's LOTR and The Hobbit trilogies.
For what it's worth ... I hope you prove me wrong about LOTR: The Series, JD. It's a well-loved series of books (not by me, I never saw them) and the movies did not bomb, but ... they could've been so much better. There was a lot of heart and warmth in "Fellowship of the Ring." I liked Elrond very much, he was my favourite character, by far. Not enough Elrond action, for my liking! Anyway, it would be nice to see a series that was made with that kind of charm and imagination. It surely would ...
Similar threads
