A Tale Conceived Epically

[Boromir88]

I came across this interesting article today: https://www.tolkienguide.com/modules/ne ... mpost42183

The author compiles Tolkien's comments on adaptations of his books, and seems to find a few things Tolkien was consistent on - he detested dramatic adaptations, complained about diversions, but adaptations can displease the author if it made more money.

I think there are a few interesting points to discuss here. I mean, I do feel sure in my long time belief, that Tolkien would have detested Peter Jackson's movies, and he would likely detest the Rings of Power, when it starts. But, I've overlooked some of the comments in the Zimmerman letter, or just never really considered them before. That is, his complaints weren't meant to kill adaptations of his books, but seems like an effort to make them better (in Tolkien's opinion, better as in more more faithful to an author's intentions).

There also seems to be a belief, and Tolkien proposes a question I never thought about before: Final query: can a tale not conceived dramatically but (for lack of a more precise term) epically, be dramatized- unless the dramatizer is given or takes liberties, as an independent person? I feel you have had a very hard task.(Letter 194)

[Rivvy Elf]

What I also find interesting is that Tolkien... and I'm taking a line from the Million Dollar Man in WWF here... had a price. He would choose to live in guaranteed security over declaring his vision to be priceless.

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Boromir: One matter I had always in mind, if you starts writing and want to make living out of it, some rules of commerce apply to your creations. They have to speak to the readers if the creation is in written form, or to the viewers if it is about a creation in visual form. Otherwise they won't make it out of the production costs and you have no money to live from. Adaptation takes always place, even while you start a tale. There are always people who perceive their work(s) as something very unique which must not change too much. Or even better not even at all. I know, from own experience, this is not how reality works. People generally accept a tale when the eyes can be content they see and the ears what they hear.

However I feel Tolkien do have a point: That the writer's intentions are honoured when adaption takes place. Usually if the writer is alive and his/her works are adapted for other forms of media, that person is involved at lesser or greater extend. As example Rowlings was involved when Harry Potter was adapted for screen. I would title it as a 'genuine adaptation'. Something that feels when it is a finished product, as something true that could have happened, whatever genre it is. They are not made solely just for joy, but also to hand you over a value or a virtue. Usually they stay the longest with you and with that I meant for months or years.

Drama is a tricky point. If there is no drama at all, not even at the smallest level, a tale is utterly boring. It doesn't read and/or view. Drama calls up a feeling in you reader/viewer, so you connect with the main protagonist. Or you cannot another major character. Making drama for the point of drama doesn't add to the tale, it more or less destroys. But so it stands with humour as well. It adds to the tale, bringing a layer. But making humour for the sake of humour, ends up evenly badly as with too much drama. It is perhaps a cruelly hard talk to use drama in an epic way and the perception fit to that purpose, but I think it is not impossible. It is about what kind of talents you have as a writer and how you utilise them to get your creation work for your viewers or readers as you intended it. An epic it becomes if people give a positive/constructive reviews and those stand over a long period of time. An epic has also essence of something almost 'immortal', new generations will enjoy as much as the ones gone before, like with Jane Austen and Charles Dickens.

Epic tales (book or movie) are out there, grand and small, but those jewels are kind of hard to find, real hard to discover in the amount what is offered. So I found Hidalgo once, when I came out the movie of the Two Towers and I saw the movie poster across the hallway in 2004. Perhaps twenty people were in the film hall the day I went and it was just a fortnight in the threatre. But yeah I got the dvd later on, as well the music score of cd.

[Boromir88]

An opinion piece by Michael C. Drout that might interest members. It's related to Tolkien's opinions about adaptations, and questions whether Lord of the Rings can be turned into a "cinematic universe."

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/opin ... lkien.html

One thing I think Drout overlooks is it appears Tolkien's attitude (after selling the film rights) wasn't to kill adaptations of his work. He questioned whether it could be done to his satisfactions, but any diversions should be more costly to the producers.

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Boromir: Thanks for the article! I read it fully through and could find lot of my thoughts into it. He names a couple of points I can find myself very well in.

Quote: "What makes Tolkien’s work unique is the moral heart of his story and the consistency with which he maintains it. Rather than reveling in the acquisition and exercise of power, “The Lord of the Rings” celebrates its renunciation, insisting that the domination of others is always morally wrong. Tolkien is utterly consistent with this morality, even at the expense of his most cherished characters: Frodo has no other choice than to use the power of the Ring to dominate Gollum, but he still pays for that immoral act when he is unable to complete his quest or to enjoy his life afterward. Can a company as intent upon domination as Amazon really understand this perspective — and adapt that morality to the screen?"

Quote: "If viewers find themselves disappointed by “The Rings of Power,” it will probably not be because the computer-generated imagery is second-rate or there are not enough fight sequences. It will be because the new adaptation lacks the literary and moral depth that make Middle-earth not just another cinematic universe but a world worth saving."

Quite brilliant written from Prof. M.D.C. Drout.

[Boromir88]

No problem Aikari. I've become particularly interested in this question of can a story that was written as an "epic" be adapted dramatically? When Tolkien asks the question to Terence Tiller, he says he feels Tiller "has a very hard task." I haven't quite got my own opinions together yet, but I think it's an interesting question Tolkien posed.

Then the next day I came across Professor Drout's op-ed, which are related to Tolkien's question. In his opinion, he definitely doubts contemporary Hollywood at being about to make Lord of the Rings a "cinematic universe." I'm closer to Professor Drout's opinions on contemporary Hollywood.

[Rivvy Elf]

I have more trust in East Asian countries for creating such epics than Hollywood. China, for instance, produced quite a few excellent TV series lasting a lot of episodes using scant primary source material. If they can make the The Investiture of the Gods palatable, then have the capability of making such an epic. Of course, there are various linguistic and cultural reasons why that probably would not work.

[Aikári Salmarinian]

Boromir: That is alright. I'll do a readback myself with letter 194 and see what the full text is behind the quote. What his entire reply was to Terence Miller. Hollywood made a lot of real good movies back in the old days. I'll wait for your reply with your conclusions.

Rivvy: China is an entity on her own.