Out-of-Order Storytelling

Hmm... the elves were not involved with the fall of man, but does that mean both peoples had not met at that point? I mean we literally only have two stories about the fall of man, the episode from the athrabeth and the very old tale of tu the elf and nuin the father of language who finds the small human children ermon and elmir from LT. I like both quite well, and they mustn't necessarily be seen as contraducting each other.
 
The story of Andreth makes no mention of Elves being involved in the Fall of Men. I really feel very strongly that the Fall is a Mortal-centric, Biblical story and that involving Elves or Dwarves would detract and distract from the story being told. The Awakening and Fall of Men should be a story about Men, and only about Men. Involving Elves in the story would also contradict what Tolkien wrote about the Fall of Men.

I am always against using Lost Tales and other early stories that Tolkien wholly rejected and replaced with something else. This is an example of that.

It's also impossible for the story to take place even similar to what was written in the Athrabeth, if Men had already met Elves who told them about Melkor and Utumno and the Valar and the Light in the West. Then when Morgoth or Sauron showed up and tried to trick them, they'd all immediately know he was lying, and that would be the end of it. (Yes, Sauron tricked the Numenoreans later, but that was after the Fall of Men had made all Men easily-tricked, and after they had suffered death and become absolutely horrified and terrified of death, which Sauron took advantage of.) The Fall of Men happened because the Dark Lord offered them... stone age technology. Clothes and houses and farming. All of which the Avari would have taught them with no strings attached. Mortals also had language before they met the Elves, and talked to each other about the Dark Lord's offer and what it meant.
 
Last edited:
MithLuin said:
But we made the decision from the very beginning of this project to make it linear - we're pretty strongly dedicated to making the events of each episode unfold in chronological order, and the frame also moves chronologically (though, obviously, along a separate timeline). The existence of the frame is one reason we don't want to mess with the timelines within the story - we already have a parallel structure going on. There is strong resistance to the use of flashback anywhere in this project.
Click to expand...

Some of us never agreed to that! The hosts imposed that condition on us (and also the severely detrimental 13 episode per season limit).

Besides, the frame is supposed to make nonlinear storytelling easier, not more confusing. The characters in the frame are there to acquaint the audience with tricky things like that. That's why we have a frame in the first place. If a shift in the timeline is the best available storytelling device for a certain part of the story we want to tell, we should use it. If the frame is interfering with that, I would sacrifice the frame first.

MithLuin said:
So...what exceptions do we want to make? What stories do we want to tell in flashback or out-of-order in some way?

So far, we have done this in very modest ways. When we planned the opening for Season 2, we stepped back in time to *before* the climatic battle at the end of Season 1, but this time watched the events play out from the perspective of the elves, not the Valar. During the Frame in Season 2, we flashed back to the attack on Celebrían. For episode 3 of Season 3, we stepped back in time with our 'Meanwhile, in Beleriand' episode, catching that story up to 'real time' by the end of the episode. And while the Noldor were traveling through Araman, Finrod had a flashback vision/memory of his parting from Amarië which happened during the rebellion of the Noldor (prior to the Kinslaying). Any I'm forgetting?


I know that for Season 4, we've had a few suggestions of items that we might want to consider telling out-of-order. One is Eöl's story - to do it in a single Eöl-centric episode, showing his history from the end of the great debate at Cuivienen until the arrival of the Noldor. The other suggestion has been how to handle the story of Men being corrupted at Hildorien. I know there is some hesitance about showing the details of a story that Tolkien himself mostly hinted at rather than told...and to avoid retelling the Garden of Eden story. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't at least consider a way to do this.

Any thoughts on this as it relates to Silm Film?
Click to expand...

Here are some ideas.

I just listened to session 4.01, where they were all discussing whether to split the events between the rising of the sun and the Dagor Bragollach into one or two seasons. If we don't quite have enough material for two seasons--IMO we have enough material for more than two seasons--we can add flashbacks to flesh out some of our main characters, particularly Beleg, Galadriel, Celeborn, Glorfindel, and Finrod.

We skipped over plenty of time between the departure of the Noldor from Middle Earth and our reintroduction to Beleriand and Thingol's kingdom where we could have created episodes to feature Beleg and Celeborn more strongly. Now that that ship has burned, we still have a chance to make them interesting using flashbacks.

Also, we rushed through the childhood of all the 3rd generation Noldor in Valinor, so there is plenty to flash back towards for those characters as well. Since we want to make Galadriel, Glorfindel, and (presumably) Finrod prominent characters in this series, I'd suggest spending some time using flashbacks to round out these characters as well.

Finally, I wouldn't be opposed to adding a mini-seasons to accomplish some of this. Maybe add a 5 episode mini-season for the adventures of Beleg, Celeborn, and Mablung in Beleriand. It should have lots of action. I'm not sure if a mini-season of life in Valinor would be interesting, though. Shorter flashbacks to life at Tirion High School might be enough to get the gist across. :D

As for Eol, I don't think his story needs to be told. In contradiction to my usual opinion on matters here, I don't think everything needs to be shown on screen. Eol is weird, and people will get that. Just have him reappear where he first shows up in the published Silmarillion. He's not very interesting and he doesn't need a backstory.
 
Disagree on the issue that Eol is uninteresting. He IS interesting! But maybe he's so because we do not know too much about him and thats the way it should be...

In a way it would be a far greater work of art if a silm series would manage to tell many different stories, maybe in episodes and thematic, but independent seasons, but would still be able to incorporate all of these into a whole picture. Like a mix of the x files, where there are sole standing episodes and a parallel mytharc and american horror stories, where there are sole standing seasons, but these are connected very loosely on some details.
 
Last edited:
I think that it is important to maintain some mystery with Eöl. It should be possible to re-introduce him this season with only the barest hints of what happened between the debate at Cuivienen and now. The main advantage of this is that the audience would find him mysterious, and want to know a bit more about what's up with this guy...and then they will find out when Aredhel does. If we reveal *too* much before Aredhel meets him, then the audience will be more inclined to see her as naive and foolishly trusting. If we wait to reveal more about him until after she's already in his forest, though, the audience is kept guessing, a bit.

When reading George MacDonald's Phantastes or Lilith, it is not always clear when meeting someone if this stranger in fairy land is a 'good guy' or a 'bad guy'. So, when the protagonist trusts the character they just met, following them or falling asleep in their presence, the reader is left in some tension - is this safe? Is this a good idea? Is the protagonist right to trust so easily/quickly, or is this a horrible mistake that will cost them? It should be okay if the audience has that sort of reaction to Eöl, where he certainly seems like bad news, but they don't know enough about him to know if he's truly going to be a nightmare for Aredhel.

So, really, all we need to see from him in Season 3 is to establish him in Nan Elmoth. That being said, the writers should know how he got there, even if that doesn't come out until Season 4.
 
If you think that an audience would put up with not knowing where Eol came from, some things can be mysterious. The reason it's always dark in Nan Elmoth can be revealed only when Aredhel asks. But Eol could have a conversation with his servants to the effect that:

1. I came all the way to Nan Elmoth to get away from tiresome and arrogant people, not to meet these Feanorians.
2. I paid a good sword made of unique magical metal to Thingol for this little speck of land, and these invaders get all of East Beleriand for free? This is a cheat and these newcomers are freeloaders. (We do have to explain where Anglachel came from, because Thingol and Beleg already know and shouldn't do the awkward exposition thing.)
4. Now I know why this awful war, and that awful Enemy and Sun and Moon, ruined the peace of Middle-earth. It's all the fault of these Noldor from the West.

A season about feuds, reconciliation, and people going away to isolate themselves, looks like the appropriate time to bring up some of this.

dietlbomb said:
Some of us never agreed to that! The hosts imposed that condition on us (and also the severely detrimental 13 episode per season limit).

Besides, the frame is supposed to make nonlinear storytelling easier, not more confusing. The characters in the frame are there to acquaint the audience with tricky things like that. That's why we have a frame in the first place. If a shift in the timeline is the best available storytelling device for a certain part of the story we want to tell, we should use it. If the frame is interfering with that, I would sacrifice the frame first.
Click to expand...
I agree completely. I never agreed to a rule that simultaneous/nonlinear stories are forbidden, and I think that rule damaged Season 3.
 
Faelivrin said:
I agree completely. I never agreed to a rule that simultaneous/nonlinear stories are forbidden, and I think that rule damaged Season 3.
Click to expand...

What damaged Season 3 had less to do with linear storytelling than it did with the severe compression of the timeline. If anything the trouble started when we stopped telling our story in a linear fashion and were forced to do what is essentially a break in the first act of the season to do an extended flashback to tell a story that the viewer should already know. Granted, that is also how the Silmarillion is structured, but that is more akin to the way one would shoot a historical docu-series.
 
A compressed timeline was only necessary because the history of Beleriand was not allowed to occur in Season 2 when it should have happened, and the Hosts required us to change the order in which all the events happened. Just like what is happening now with Eol.


I would be more OK with linear storytelling if we were actually allowed to tell events at the time that they actually occur. It works to tell things linearly, if you tell them in the order they happen.

It also works to tell things with out-of-order storytelling. It would have worked in Season 3 if we were allowed to make it an actual flashback of the necessary length.

What isn't working is when we're not allowed to tell things in the order they happened, nor tell them with out-of-order storytelling. It leaves us with no good options, every time.
 
Last edited:
Well, some of the Silmarillion is told out of order. The chapter introducing Maeglin and the deaths of Aredhel and Eol is before the arrival of Men in book order, but takes place chronologically later.
 
Yes, and it's a perfect example of out-of-order storytelling working fine, because Tolkien doesn't squeeze all of Eol's history into one paragraph, and doesn't squeeze all of Beleriand's history into one paragraph, and also doesn't compress them into each occurring in only 1-2 weeks.

If we had been allowed to tell a proper "flashback" and take the time we needed both in-universe and in number of episodes, I think it would have worked fine for us too.

I think that we may need more careful planning ahead. I don't think that planning only 1 season at a time and kicking dozens of cans down the road has worked well. Roughly planning out 2 seasons (4 and 5) was a good start.
 
Last edited:
In other words, it might have been possible to do a more aggressive adaptation of the source material, where the Beleriand material was integrated with the Valinor material happening simultaneously during Season 2. IIRC, that option was considered (though ultimately rejected).

But of course we did not do that; we stuck with the storytelling order (though not the timeline) in the published Silmarillion, going to Valinor and solely dealing with that story, before returning to Beleriand in Season 3. At this point, it is what it is, and that's what we have to work with.


When I say I am a fan of out-of-order storytelling, I mean that I would have started this series with the awakening of the Elves at Cuivienen, and told *all* of the Season 1 material in flashback, when it became relevant (or not at all). We would have gotten a much less thorough introduction to the Valar. So, maybe the viewers would not encounter the Ainulindale until, say, Finrod met Men and tried to explain the Valar to them. Or something.

But...it's not my project, and we're not doing it that way.

Part of the advantage of sticking to linear chronology (or following the order in the published Silmarillion) is that it requires less planning and mapping out of storylines in advance...you just go with what's already there. Bringing up a story when it becomes thematically relevant can be a bit more difficult to pull off, and might feel like it's being forced.

But, if done well...obviously, that can be rewarding, too.
 
MithLuin said:
In other words, it might have been possible to do a more aggressive adaptation of the source material, where the Beleriand material was integrated with the Valinor material happening simultaneously during Season 2. IIRC, that option was considered (though ultimately rejected).

But of course we did not do that; we stuck with the storytelling order (though not the timeline) in the published Silmarillion, going to Valinor and solely dealing with that story, before returning to Beleriand in Season 3. At this point, it is what it is, and that's what we have to work with.


When I say I am a fan of out-of-order storytelling, I mean that I would have started this series with the awakening of the Elves at Cuivienen, and told *all* of the Season 1 material in flashback, when it became relevant (or not at all). We would have gotten a much less thorough introduction to the Valar. So, maybe the viewers would not encounter the Ainulindale until, say, Finrod met Men and tried to explain the Valar to them. Or something.

But...it's not my project, and we're not doing it that way.

Part of the advantage of sticking to linear chronology (or following the order in the published Silmarillion) is that it requires less planning and mapping out of storylines in advance...you just go with what's already there. Bringing up a story when it becomes thematically relevant can be a bit more difficult to pull off, and might feel like it's being forced.

But, if done well...obviously, that can be rewarding, too.
Click to expand...

One thing that I would take care to avoid is the appearance of not having known about something until it came to the forefront. To give an example: One of my biggest complaints about Thor: Ragnarok (which is a film I truly enjoy ... like, a lot) is the introduction of Hela. Odin brings her up to his "sons" in the moments preceding his death. They have never heard of her. No one ever told them. In the 1500 years that Thor has been alive, no one mentioned to him that he is not the firstborn son of Odin. No one in Asgard seems to have heard of her either. Apparently, Odin buried her giant wolf, her army of dead soldiers, and her memory all in one stroke. It certainly appears as if Odin didn't know about her until the script of Thor: Ragnarok told him to.

Granted, this isn't what is happening, but I'd prefer that it not appear that it is.
 
Absolutely! That's one of my concerns when we can't tell things in the order they happened.

But sometimes, out-of-order storytelling is simply the correct choice to preserve tension and mystery. Consider the Battle of Pelennor Fields. Would it be as gripping, or as nail-biting, if the first-time reader knew ahead of time when the Rohirrim would arrive, and knew that the Corsair ships were manned by the Grey Company? The power of the moment when the black-sailed ships appear and everyone feels such despair, and then the moment when the standard of Elendil is seen and the mood turns around, depend on out-of-order storytelling. Of course the reader wants to know how the Grey Company got from the Door of the Dead to Pelargir and seized those ships, but Tolkien made the right choice by putting the exposition into Gimli and Legolas' mouths after the battle was over.

And the LotR, more generally, uses out-of-order storytelling to tell three parallel and simultaneous stories: Frodo and Sam, Merry and Pippin, and the Three Hunters; then Frodo and Sam, Merry and the Rohirrim, and Gandalf and Pippin and Minas Tirith. Instead of alternating chapters, Tolkien alternates entire sub-books for Frodo and Sam. It works, which is why I don't think that splitting a season to do Valinor and Beleriand separately would have been inherently a problem.
 
Last edited:
It is certainly much, MUCH easier to get away with this in a book than on film...though of course it can be done on film, too. Generally speaking, you have to justify the approach more aggressively on film, whereas in a book, you just...do it, and people go with it. So, the tension of a reveal is okay. But generally there's more to it, like a thematic reason or bringing the audience into a particular perspective.

Dropping a character and then bringing that character back later is a challenge, because you have to remind the audience of who this person is - you can't assume viewers will remember back to season X. And since your *characters* probably haven't forgotten who it is, you generally have to orchestrate some 'inform the new guy' scene where the characters, who of course recall the character who has been off the show for awhile, talk about this character to a new person who doesn't know them yet. Generally, you get a brief synopsis, 'you know, so-and-so's sister, the one who ran off with *other character* after going through rehab?' or something like that. That way, the audience can still follow the new part of the story without having to be told a complete recap of the character's earlier involvement on the show.

A lot of shows have characters who appear once per season, with a recurring guest star who returns for some reason and is involved in just that episode before leaving again...only to make another appearance the following year. Family members of show regulars (if the show is based on a workplace), or co-workers of show regulars (if it's a family drama) are popular opportunities for this. And so, they have to be reintroduced each time, and it can usually be done fairly seamlessly.

But dropping an entire storyline and then coming back to it later is much more unusual and less well-received by an audience. When there are multiple storylines taking place in different places involving different characters, the audience will naturally pick favorites. And so, an episode or series of episodes dedicated to a particular story arc might be panned because you've left behind the storyline the audience actually cared about to deal with this other thing they *didn't* care about. It's a writing challenge, and there's not just one particular way to handle it. The more integrated the disparate storylines are, the less it will feel as though the main story has been abandoned, though. And there should always be a reason to return to it...you don't want the audience bored with filler waiting until that storyline gets to the good part. Ideally, you do this *SO* seamlessly, that the audience doesn't even realize it's happening, so the story progression just feels natural.

In the Silmarillion, we have a cast of thousands (well, not literally, of course), but the point is that we don't have a 'central character' or even a group of 5-6 people who are in every episode and serve as the main characters for the audience. We have main characters for, like, half a season, and then move on to someone else. Fëanor, who is arguably one of the most important characters in the whole project, only exists from mid-Season 2 to late-Season 3. So, we are very intentionally telling the audience to focus on a main character...for that episode, and then to focus on someone else in the next episode. At some point, I should really make a list of the protagonists we've used so we can see who our 'central characters' are at a glance.
 
Looking forward for the Frame, we’re planning to have Aragorn’s first meeting with Arwen coincide with Beren and Luthien, right? We could have the last meeting of the White Council pushed up before Aragorn meets Arwen, or Mount Doom erupting, though we might be playing a bit with the timeline.
 
I think Mount Doom erupting was put in the Season 3 frame, and blamed for the Fell Winter which was also moved to that year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top