Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 8802927" data-attributes="member: 58197">It is certainly true that you wouldn't want Tolkien writing TV scripts. There are a few cases of adaptations where the writer of the books also has experience working in TV ("Game of Thrones" and "Sandman" are the two that come to mind offhand), but they are the exception to the rule.However, there is a deeper point here: The shape of the story, and the motivations and interactions of the characters, were crafted with a purpose by someone who knew what they were doing and did it well (if they hadn't done it well, nobody would be trying to make an adaptation). If you lose that, you lose what makes the whole thing work. Adapting the story means you have to grasp what the author was doing and why, to see not just surface details but the underlying vision, and hold onto that vision--the author's vision, not yours--even as you change a lot of details to fit the new medium.It is not easy, and it's especially hard if you can't talk to the original author. I think Peter Jackson did about as good a job as could be done without Tolkien there to explain himself, and even so, there was quite a lot lost in translation (which is probably why Christopher Tolkien was famously unhappy with the movies).Cultures suffering catastrophe is easy. Everyone likes an apocalypse. Characters suffering a tragic ending is very different. George R. R. Martin is notorious for character deaths, but the Silmarillion makes Martin look like Mr. Rogers. If Ned Stark read it, he'd be glad he got off so easy.And Turin's story is exceptionally terrible even for the Silmarillion. Everything good in his life turns to disaster, everyone he loves dies (many by Turin's own hand), and he finishes up by committing suicide.</blockquote>

Verification