More Middle-Earth after The Hobbit?

[Lord]

We all know the main middle earth stories were The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, however there are other books like Silmarillion and The Children of Hurin, i know that they were finished by other writers but does any of you think they should be made into films?

Morgoth could be interesting to see

 

[Boom]

Not likely to happen at this point. The Tolkien Estate holds the films right to all of Tolkien's work outside of The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit.

And given Christopher Tolkien's position on film adaptations of his father's work, I think it's safe to say that The Hobbit: There and Back Again will be the last of Middle-earth on screen.

 

[Lord]

This asks both, if you think it will happen, and if you would be interested to see it happening, and Tolkien's son doesn't like the movies?

 

[Wolf Boy]

I'm sure we'll see them all at some point over the years. I think Peter Jackson will hang it up after The Hobbit films though.

 

[Spider-Phoenix]

I'm sure we'll see them all at some point over the years. I think Peter Jackson will hang it up after The Hobbit films though.

Thank god. I would never want to see PJ get his hands on the Silmarillion.

 

[Art_of_Crime]

I hope no one tries to adapt the Silmarillion. I doubt the general public would have the vaguest clue what the hell was going on half the time.

 

[Still Wynning]

Call me crazy, but I think it would be interesting if an anime company did an adaptation of The Silmarillion. There's a lot of abstract stuff (but not too much), and a lot of stories within there to tell, so I think that format would be perfect.

I would especially love to see the tale of Beren and Luthien in animated form.

 

[Armored Avenger]

The Silmarillion is not written as a linear story in the same way that The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are. It is far more like a document of many historical events, taking place over a vast period of time. It would be impossible to make "The Silmarillion: The Movie".
The Children of Hurin, Beren and Luthien and The Fall of Gondolin are a few of the stories that have enough narrative weight behind them to make successful individual adaptations, but they would need a lot of additional material to explain the state of the world around them and none of them would have a proper conclusion (the war with Morgoth, the main catalyst in all these stories, is not resolved until the barely described War of Wrath).
In the end I don't think I would want to see an adaptation of The Silmarillion. It would require a lot of changes, both in additions and subtractions, to make it work on screen unless it was made in the same style as the book, to be a kind of historical chronicle on the ancient times of Middle-Earth.

 

[cherokeesam]

The only way I could see The Silmarillion working is as an HBO miniseries of truly epic proportions.

The Silmarillion is the Bible of Middle Earth; there's no way to visualize it except in biblical terms. You *sure* as hell couldn't condense it into a 2 (or even 3) hour movie.

 

[Lord]

I think that they could take some stories from Quenta Silmarillion and The Children of Hurin, what if CoH has much background? Felowship of the rings had even more.
I don't think Peter Jackson will be interested in making more, unless somebody is able to successfully sell him the idea.
By the way, in the novels the Hobbits gave Worm tongue and saruman a chance, Worm Tongue surrendered and killed Saruman in his back, then the Hobbits shot him with arrows, why? Didn't they just say that they would let him live if he surrendered?

 

[Ponyboy]

By the way, in the novels the Hobbits gave Worm tongue and saruman a chance, Worm Tongue surrendered and killed Saruman in his back, then the Hobbits shot him with arrows, why? Didn't they just say that they would let him live if he surrendered?

Read the book.

No but seriously... Saruman tried to kill Frodo one last time, and Frodo said not to harm him. A few moments later Wormtongue murdered Saruman, and the other Hobbits standing nearby shot Wormy. Swift justice, so to speak.

 

[Wolf Boy]

to make it work on screen unless it was made in the same style as the book, to be a kind of historical chronicle on the ancient times of Middle-Earth.

It could work as a movie with a whole bunch of short stories. If it is a film, i see it more as an art house sort of release rather than a big budget blockbuster sort of film. Or maybe even as a mini series.

 

[Lord]

Having just been on a Marathon of the Entire Lord of the Rings Trilogy i think something like this could work. It would probably take more than one film but there's not the need to adapt every single tale of the Silmarilion.

For the first film for example there can be made another introduction like the one made for The Lord of the Rings, telling what need to be told, then during the course of the film have some flashbacks about some of the other tales and about Melkor.

This said i doubt Peter Jackson takes any interest in making more movies of the Middle-Earth, i think his interest lies in The Lord of the Rings and Hobbit only, he wanted to make The Hobbit before LotR, it was just studio problems and all that that prevented him from doing so.

It's also possible that since New Line Cinema doesn't have the rights for other Middle-Earth works they will start to reboot, something i hope doesn't happen

 

[kedrell]

The only way I could see The Silmarillion working is as an HBO miniseries of truly epic proportions.

The Silmarillion is the Bible of Middle Earth; there's no way to visualize it except in biblical terms. You *sure* as hell couldn't condense it into a 2 (or even 3) hour movie.

It could be a movie. They made a movie out of the Bible in th 1960's after all(granted it was just Genesis 1:1 through Abraham's sacrifice). If they did do The Silmarillion as a movie then they'd probably have to do it this way and have the Beren & Luthien story be the meat of the film. But they could spend a good half hour just getting to that point and setting up all that came before.

 

[Webhead2006]

Why wasn't tolkien son happy with the films. Wherent they pretty faithful to the books.

 

[Lord]

It could be a movie. They made a movie out of the Bible in th 1960's after all(granted it was just Genesis 1:1 through Abraham's sacrifice). If they did do The Silmarillion as a movie then they'd probably have to do it this way and have the Beren & Luthien story be the meat of the film. But they could spend a good half hour just getting to that point and setting up all that came before.

I like that idea, it covers the entire First Age and creation, leaves the Second age open if they want to make another film, but these films should be in least 3 hours, Return of the King extended edition was 4 hours, why wouldn't these films be 4 hours too?

Aparently Tolkien's son think the lord of the rings trilogy is unfilmable and no matter what the movies will always be inferior to the books, in fact it's funny to notice that no matterhow faithfull the movies are the fans will allways complain how they have nothing to do with the books and how they cut important parts, yet when a movie like the Sicilian follows the book almost page by page critics complain how they weren't original and how the movie shouldn't have followed the book so faithfully.

 

[cherokeesam]

It could be a movie. They made a movie out of the Bible in th 1960's after all(granted it was just Genesis 1:1 through Abraham's sacrifice). If they did do The Silmarillion as a movie then they'd probably have to do it this way and have the Beren & Luthien story be the meat of the film. But they could spend a good half hour just getting to that point and setting up all that came before.

Yeah, and *technically* Mel Brooks already did the History of the World (Part I) in 2 hours....

But trying to condense the Bible of Middle Earth into 2-3 hours would be a huge disservice to Tolkien and the fans. Each story in the book is its own self-contained little fairy tale; it just makes more sense to present it as a Game of Thrones-style miniseries. *If* you present it at all.

 

[kedrell]

Yeah, and *technically* Mel Brooks already did the History of the World (Part I) in 2 hours....

But trying to condense the Bible of Middle Earth into 2-3 hours would be a huge disservice to Tolkien and the fans. Each story in the book is its own self-contained little fairy tale; it just makes more sense to present it as a Game of Thrones-style miniseries. *If* you present it at all.

The problem with going the GOT route IMO is that the quality will suffer for it. Now don't get me wrong, GOT & HBO are top notch...even better made than many movies today. But they're still not up to snuff with the likes of what PJ did with the LOTR films. That takes much more $ invested than any TV show has ever got. In essence, what I'd like if they did indeed go that route is to make that 4-6hr epic motion picture(or however long it would take to tell it) that they then could break up into 1-2 hr episodes. But I doubt they'd greenlight $200-400M for a miniseries of maybe only 6 episodes.

 

[marcvader]

The Silmarilion is way too convoluted with stories within stories. I had a devil of a time getting through that one. At best it would have to be broken up into several movies.

 

[Silvermoth]

I used to think "The Hobbit" would never be made. Now look where we are!

So anything's possible.

 

[Rac]

Idk does this still stand:

Posted 1/20/2004 12:10 AM

By Susan Wloszczyna, USA TODAY

New Line may just toss a few new Rings titles out there. It has production rights to Tolkien's original Middle-earth tale, The Hobbit, although the situation is complicated by MGM/UA's distribution ownership. "There's a reasonable possibility that we can negotiate an arrangement," New Line co-chairman Bob Shaye says.

The studio also has the rights to create its own original prequel or sequel to The Lord of the Rings, but would pursue the projects only if Jackson would be involved again.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2004-01-20-fantasy-films-main_x.htm

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

Why wasn't tolkien son happy with the films. Wherent they pretty faithful to the books.

NOT. AT. ALL.
They basically were a big middle-finger to the LOTR fans out there.

 

[marcvader]

Oh come on, they were pretty damn faithful. Yes there were several omissions but to say it was a big middle finger is just over the top.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

NOT. AT. ALL.
They basically were a big middle-finger to the LOTR fans out there.

I am a LOTR fan and I love the film versions of Fellowship and Two Towers.

 

[DarknessOfDeath]

I just finished my LOTR marathon and would like to see The Silmarillion made into a movie. I can think of a few actresses who could play Luthien... and actors to plays Beren.

If it weren't for the guy playing Thorin in the Hobbit, he would be my choice to play Beren. As for Luthien, I'm gonna go with Kate Beckinsale. Since Richard who is already playing Thorin, I choose either Christian Bale or Josh Dallas as Beren.

*shrugs*