New to the project: ideas and issues

Been listening, almost all caught up now. First time on the boards. But I'm left with a few nagging issues.

1) What is the name of this show? Is it just called The Silmarillion? Does it gain a new title when we move into the third age, a la Archie Bunker's Place? Forgive me if this was addressed in a session I didn't listen to. But it makes a difference. The Silmarillion is the history of the Silmarils, and if we don't get to those until the end of season two, that's an issue to me. Which leads me to...

2) I emphatically disagree with how season 1 was done. Because I don't think it should have been a full season. I'm fine with where it ends and all, but I think it really should have been a pre-series miniseries (a la V or Battlestar Galactica) of no more than 8 hours. Listening to season one and hearing entire episodes set aside for elucidating little bits of subtext just seemed wrong to me. Does it really take an hour to say "Melkor is bad. Oh, and he's into Varda"? And do we want the entire first year of the Silmarillion to feature not only no silmarils but essentially no elves at all? I want a solid set-up, but not "The Valar Power Hour". No one wants this to be a show like Babylon 5 where everyone says "it doesn't get good until season two." I'm tempted to remind folks that "he who breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom." :)

3) But I was pleased to hear that the frame ideas were rethought and Corey's new plan that the frames should be successive in time. I agree (I was gritting my teeth during the initial season zero discussion!) Which leads me to the suggestion: at some point, one frame should be young Faramir, the "wizard's pupil" under Gandalf's tutelage! Either the history of Numenor, or perhaps of Gondor and Arnor. The latter if we want to use Aragorn's days among the Rohirrim to tell their story.

4) Regarding the origin of Orcs: I like where a lot of this has gone. There are many possible methods and I think the ideal is to suggest all of them and commit to none of them exclusively. Here's my thoughts. The original orcs were indeed things made "of stone and slime and hatred", in a mirror to how Aule made the dwarves. But Melkor learns the hard way what Aule did: that they are mere automatons. At first this is fine with him, but it becomes tiring and so the notion of fell spirits inhabiting said orc bodies is introduced (surely this is a similar method to how we get trolls, yes? And possibly giants?). Meanwhile, we have the torture and experimentation on captured Elves. I completely agree that a prime motivation is to understand them, as they are so unlike the Ainur. But where the other Valar just invite them to tea, Melkor opts for vivisection. Ultimately these ongoing experiments lead not only to unhousing their fea but also to cross-breeding and such. Why? Because Melkor or Sauron realize that breeding is essential for growing an army. He doesn't want to have to make new ones from scratch. In a war of attrition, continuing self-replicating forces is essential. So the Elf experiments become not just "how this works" research, but "how can we use this?" Ultimately all this leads to Orcs 2.0.

And this leads me to my favorite idea about the orc origins: If orcs 1.0 are involved in the torture of elves, we have here the origins of alien abduction tropes! These smaller, long-armed, bug-eyed, green-skinned monsters capturing and torturing elves with medical experimentation, taking fluid samples, etc. Perhaps these experiments are ongoing, and thus Celebrian's "torture" was just that: she's not overcome with just typical torment, she's got PTSD from her alien abduction experience! Throw in the hypnotic power of Morgoth and/or his dragons, and we've got all the basic elements of the modern idea! (well, except metallic implants, but maybe that's the origin of the lesser rings.)

Anyway, just some stuff I've been mulling over. Good luck on all the work and such. I may not be over on the boards too much as it's a rabbit hole that I could go down and never leave and then I'd never get anything done! But thought I'd join the discussion if only a little.
 
As one who has, as you say, gone down the rabbit hole and never left, I wanted to kind of address the issue of season 1.

From the very beginning, we wanted the Valar to be actual characters and not caricatures. I wonder if you had the chance to read the thirteen outlines which were created, or watched the discussions where we fleshed them out. The whole point of fleshing out the Valar is so that we care about them. If we merely tell their story documentary-style, it will not read the same on screen as it does in the books. We won't feel the loss of the Lamps, or for that matter the Trees, if we do not care about their creators. Additionally, setting up Melkor by just saying, ok, this is our designated bad guy, kinda swings away from the Tolkienian premise that "Nothing is evil in the beginning".


I really like your ideas about the orcs, and your take is similar to the one I started with. I do think, however, that we may have to leave it open to interpretation. Suggest that any or all things are possible, but as you say, don't commit to any.

As to the title, I do not believe any title has been decided upon, but I would posit that not naming it "The Silmarillion" does seem a mistake from a marketing standpoint.


Glad you had the chance to share your thoughts, and I do hope that you find time to join us down here in Wonderland.
 
I haven't read the season 1 outlines as of yet. Thoughts based solely on listening to the main episode brainstorms. And I didn't mean to come off so negative on them. I just think a bit more brevity is in the project's best interest. I agree nothing is evil at it's start, but neither do I want too much to sympathize with Melkor. It started sounding like Ungoliant was more obviously fallen before Melkor, and that seemed off to me. I can understand why he falls, but I need to kniw him as the guy who's gonna torture Hurin and stuff. I worry that delving too deep into motives and such leads to making a movie about World War II that spends 2 hours on young Afolf Hitler struggling with his painting.

Mostly I had no problem with a lot of the concepts, just thst they didn't need so much screen time to be effective. The destruction of the lamps is important, and we need to understand that, but it is incidental in the grand scheme of the story. Does it require 6 episodes to get there? I see no real reason all that couldn't have been achieved in 4 hours max. Like I had no problem with how much screentime PJ gave the unexpected party, but I'd feel cheated if the whole first film was just that.

The world of Arda unmarred is foundational, but not ultimately the real story.
 
Frosty, welcome to the boards!

I hear what you are saying about the content of Season 1 perhaps not making for 13 hours of gripping television. When we tried to outline out some of the episodes they certainly came up short of an hour's worth of content. My main defense is that - it was the beginning! We were starting out and getting the hang of things, and might not have paced the Season as optimally as possible. Our fearless leaders came up with some interesting story ideas, but ultimately they are new at this, too. The goal was to have a 13-episode season, but...that might not have actually happened. Could it have been condensed to 10 episodes? 8? 6? Or 13 half-hour episodes rather than 1-hour episodes? Perhaps.

It is very possible that an *actual* Studio Executive would say, 'Nice backstory - we'll use that as flashbacks where necessary and just start this show right off with those elves in Season 2.' If you're more comfortable assuming that is what happened, it's fine by me :) Pretend that Season 1 was condensed down to 6 episodes with roughly the content outlined in the Sessions and...on we go to Season 2.

I hope you don't consider that response too flippant. I want to welcome you to this project and look forward to your contributions moving forward. I'm not sure if a time will come when we'll revisit the past, but of course anyone is welcome to attempt to write a script for any of the Episodes - if you take on the 'Condensed Season 1' approach as a project, it will certainly be interesting to see!



As for the title....this is 'The Silmarillion Film Project' after all, so I imagine it will be called...The Silmarillion. 'Game of Thrones' probably should have been titled 'A Song of Ice and Fire' since that is the name of the series and only the first book [content of the first season] is called 'Game of Thrones'...but the title is not inappropriate for the series, really. Yes, yes it's more about the dragons and the White Walkers than who sits on the Iron Throne (eventually), but that's at least still a somewhat relevant question. I realize that the reason for the title would usually be revealed in the first season of a show. I don't watch 'The Walking Dead,' so I don't know at what point in the show the line, 'We are the Walking Dead' gets used...but if they stuck to their source material, it would probably be closer to Season 3. Of course, the zombie dilemma is introduced in the very first episode, right away, and they call them 'Walkers' from the beginning.

To have no elves until season 2 and no silmarils until Episode 9 of Season 2...yeah, I can see why that's problematic. On the other hand - the actual book of the Silmarillion goes up through and including 'Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age', so....

But it might be useful to name the Seasons as well. When we gave the talk at MidMoot to update folks on our progress, I kept saying 'Season 1' or 'Season 3' and Corey Olsen had to interrupt me and remind people what the content of those seasons actually was.

Something like:

Season One: In the Beginning of Days
Season Two: In the Light of the Trees
Season Three: The Rebellion of the Noldor (now with Dwarves)
Season Four: Super Gripping Sindar-Noldor political squabbling leading up to an exciting Battle. Also, Men.
Season Five: The Tale of Beren and Luthien
Season Six: Sucks to be Turin
Season Seven: Of Tuor and Gondolin
Season Eight: Everybody Dies
Season Nine: Second Age

(So maybe not all of those are serious suggestions, and I don't know the actual content of seasons or breaking points past Season 5.)

If we weren't going to call it 'The Silmarillion,' do you have any other suggestions for a title?
 
Last edited:
Game of Thrones at least used the phrase "Game of Thrones" in season 1.

Perhaps the frame is a way to smooth it over. Elrond says something like "all this is what led to the war of the jewels and the loss of the silmarils." Estel: "What are silmarils?" Elrond: "that... Is a long story." It's a little too How I Met Your Mother, but working them in at least in passing would help.

Probably a good idea to explain the term "Middle-Earth" at some point in the show too.

As to titles, it's something I've given passing thought to, but nothing firm.

Arda Marred
Tales of the Elder Days
The Shaping of Middle-Earth
Song of Pride and Hope
Of Elves and Men
The Powers That Were
Lore and Lost Tales
lost Tales of Middle-Earth
Children of Eru
The Annals of Elves and Men
The Secret Fire

and I'm sure a bunch of others that could be culled from Tolkien quotes.
Just thought it worth asking the question.
 
Last edited:
In our 'intro' of Season One, Episode One, we had a young 10-year-old Estel running through Rivendell with glimpses of tapestries and statues and other depictions of events from throughout the show. Glorfindel fighting a balrog was one of the scenes we picked; something with the Silmarils seems an obvious choice for that scene. It would just be an unexplained 'teaser,' though. To work in a reference to the Silmarils while discussing the Lamps might be possible. Elrond could be explaining how the light of the Lamps isn't like an actual lamp, and is brighter than the sun, but even the light of the sun is diminished from the Primordial light that lived in the Lamps and the Two Trees and the Silmarils, but is now lost...except for the light of the Star of Eärendil. That's one of those 'I'm going to say a bunch of stuff that you don't understand at all' lines that will make sense later or on a re-watch. But I'm fine with that; I think it is a good idea to at least *hint* about the Silmarils in Season 1.

Thank you for suggesting names, though - all of our episodes will need names, and we've only gotten 'official' names for a few of them. Episode 6 of this Season is called 'Elvenhome,' but most of the other episodes haven't been named yet.
 
Yeah even somethings like "This was before the Sun, before the Moon, before that star there" pointing to Earendil.

I love coming up with titles so it's something I'll be thinking about going forward. It would be great if a lot of them could come from Tolkien himself.
I was reading Appendix A today, and Arwen's use of the phrase "the loss and the silence" struck me as a great idea for a future episode title.
 
I haven't read the season 1 outlines as of yet. Thoughts based solely on listening to the main episode brainstorms. And I didn't mean to come off so negative on them. I just think a bit more brevity is in the project's best interest. I agree nothing is evil at it's start, but neither do I want too much to sympathize with Melkor. It started sounding like Ungoliant was more obviously fallen before Melkor, and that seemed off to me. I can understand why he falls, but I need to kniw him as the guy who's gonna torture Hurin and stuff. I worry that delving too deep into motives and such leads to making a movie about World War II that spends 2 hours on young Afolf Hitler struggling with his painting.

Mostly I had no problem with a lot of the concepts, just thst they didn't need so much screen time to be effective. The destruction of the lamps is important, and we need to understand that, but it is incidental in the grand scheme of the story. Does it require 6 episodes to get there? I see no real reason all that couldn't have been achieved in 4 hours max. Like I had no problem with how much screentime PJ gave the unexpected party, but I'd feel cheated if the whole first film was just that.

The world of Arda unmarred is foundational, but not ultimately the real story.

Welcome again, Frosty. I wanted to point out you seem to be coming at things from a very informed point of view: something that the regular viewing audience will not be. Taking Melkor exactly as he is presented in the published Silmarillion, taking for granted all but the most archetypal aspects of his character, would have been fine if "the published Silmarillion" is all that we were shooting for. This adaptation has a somewhat broader and more inclusive scope than that, however, and in light of that "this isn't necessary" is a kind of inert criticism. None of this is "necessary", it's a fan project intending to help participants deepen their familiarity with the Published Silmarillion as well as the various versions of it that are extant, and understand the characters, themes, and other components that make the story what it is. In the course of that, we're not only digging deeper than what is on the page in the Published Silmarillion, we're taking creative license where we think it improves the final product. The "Execs" made the decision to spend more time, a LOT more time with the Valar and the villains precisely to avoid having them be the distant, relatively one-dimensional monoliths they are in the Silmarillion in an effort to get back some of what was lost in the earliest versions, where they were much more well-rounded characters.

Further, I feel like you've really missed a huge part of the point of Season one that is leading you to considering the "Arda Unmarred" period to be superfluous: the major benefit of Season 1 for me has been an increased focus on the MISTAKES that the Valar make, none of which were obvious to me the first time I read the Silmarillion, and I think those mistakes are really critical for understanding the over-arching theme for ALL of Tolkien's mythos. So cutting all of season one to a handful of hours just to set the stage for the supposed "real" story would be throwing the baby out with the BATH, never mind the water. Seeing the Valar try and fail is as vital, if not more so, as setting up a believable and more complex villain than we get in the Published Silm. The formative periods that we cover in season one are so much more than foundation, they are archetypal in the mythic sense: we cannot call back to things we have not depicted on the screen anywhere near as effectively, but we absolutely will be referencing a great number of the things that occur in season one, but to compare and to contrast them with these archetypes when we encounter them again writ small with Elves and Humans in subsequent seasons.
 
I've also been a quiet listener to the podcasts so far...

theres a lot of Ideas a like and a lot i dislike (for example i find the entire frame-work distracting, i don't like the idea and so i won't participate in the discussions about it :) )

So far I liked the first Season... i thought the Valar could be shown more as nature-powers at first before they get more attached to eruhin-like bodies... foer example I like the idea of the first "Battles" in Arda not being fought as literal battles by embodied Spirits but as battles of forces of Nature, Winter, Ice, Vulcanoes, Earthquakes, ... before it gets to a more personalized conflict after the fall of the lamps.

Damn. i like the Idea of the Ainur first awakening in their newly achieved physical forms and still being curious about the experience... like Yavanna changing from a Tree into a female person or Osse and Uinen climbing out of the Water or Manwe and Varda manifesting from light and Air into incarnates... or Aule manifesting from fire, Stone and Lava or the Fesnturi becoming more physical out of shadowy forms.

I like the Idea that Morgoth first descends upon Arda in te form of a meterite... crowned by smoke and fire and cold like Ice... sounds like an asteroid to me, and fits to the fall of the morning Star in the bible.


I don#t like the way Orcs are depicted in many adaptions... as pure monsters
reading Tolkien closely I always got te idea of disfigured Humans, small, muscular, brawny, heavy built, hairy, but not necessarily monstrous... though they still have claws and animal-like fangs and cat-eyes... I think Orcs as more human-like also are, in a way, more horrible than pure monsters one can't really relate to...
 
Back
Top