Peter Jackson's The Silmarillion

[Overread]

PJ has changed enough that the films are his thing not a 100% faithful adaptation. As such we would have to expect to see changes to the Silmarillion tales that, if made, were chosen to be displayed; or we'd see those changes made in the core films affect the added content to the Silmarillion stories (where such detail is left short or missing).

The more you diverge from the source (which in the case of the films is Lord of the Rings) the more significant the changes become to preserve the film continuity against the book continuity. So the further it went the more and more change we would expect to see until we'd end up with films that are so far from the original source material that they are much more "inspired by" than anything else.

It's a problem with film adaptations since bits they leave out; deviations from the original and newly added content all adds up and at some point the director/writer has to decide. Do they stick to the original and suddenly the film/series of films takes a sudden shock turn that doesn't really fit; or do they preserve integrity within the film itself and keep the theme of the original source, but also change it sometimes significantly.

The latter is, whilst a crime to authenticity (so far as original source material is concerned) the best option since it allows the films to be an entity in their own right and to flow and pace correctly.

 

[farntfar]

You may recall that, in one case at least, this works the other way.
Arthur C Clarke was actually writing 2001 as a book at the same time as working with Stanley Kubrick to create the film.

In the book, the action all took place around Saturn, but in the film, Kubrick thought that Jupiter was more appropriate.

When Clarke wrote his sequel to 2001, 2010, he followed the film's location. He also writes in a foreword that in that, and in several other differences between the two, he has followed the film rather than his own book.

Thank goodness that Tolkien isn't still around or Jackson would doubtless insist that HIS is the canon for Tolkien to follow.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

But the Book 2001 was really because of the Film project, which Clarke mostly wrote too, it's not the same scenario as LOTR book and Jackson Films. Though how ever it happened, Jupiter probably is a better choice. I don't remember the book being Saturn, but it's a very long time since I read it and had no inclination to re-read it, I think one of A.C. Clarke's poorer and more pretentious stories. He's written lots I did enjoy.

Thankfully the original claim on this thread is a joke.

 

[Siberian]

Even purists like me realize that no adaption is 100% faithful. Even if someone tried to include all characters and important scenes from the books (which would require at least 30 hours by my estimation) they'd still wouldn't be exactly the same. And that's fine. But that's doesn't mean I must keep quiet when I feel the writers ruined great characters, introduced plot holes or (the worst crime in my opinion) subverted important themes from the books. "A movie is not a book" mantra can get you only so far.

The more you diverge from the source (which in the case of the films is Lord of the Rings) the more significant the changes become to preserve the film continuity against the book continuity. So the further it went the more and more change we would expect to see until we'd end up with films that are so far from the original source material that they are much more "inspired by" than anything else.

I have to say, I'd prefer for the adaption to be completely different from the source as that would make it easier for me to enjoy it on its own terms (like Frozen being inspired by Andersen's The Snow Queen for example). Lotr movies are in a weird place where they sort of look like Tolkien and follow most of the major milestone along the way but pervert almost everything in a cliched Hollywood fashion. Basically, they're closer to the letter than the spirit of the book if that makes any sense. Incidentally, I'm less concerned with the Hobbit movies as they have less to do with the source.

 

[Overread]

Siberian I honestly also prefer films that are inspired by rather than trying to ape the original source material. Books just don't translate well into a pure film adaptation unless done really darn well and, honestly, quite a short book as well. Much gets lost, especially as using narrators is very out of fashion in films today (beyond one or two moments at the start of some films).

That said if a film is "inspired by" then I feel it should really have a different title and be its 100% own thing; not try to recreate the characters and title in an alternate dimension. Because what happens is that I then end up disliking a film simply because they took things a different direction to the original; changed characters that didn't need changing; added things that didn't need adding and took out really cool amazing bits.

Sadly film producers like using titles and character names because it helps get an instant fan-base who will likely see it at the box-office

 

[BAYLOR]

Doesn't the Tolkien estate have the final say on whether or not The Silmarillion gets down at all?

 

[Venusian Broon]

Doesn't the Tolkien estate have the final say on whether or not The Silmarillion gets down at all?

Not when the article is a joke

 

[BAYLOR]

Not when the article is a joke

I skimmed the article way too quickly.