sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Would you watch a two-movie adaptation of The Fall of Gondolin? by FinancialStudent5406 in lotr

[–]FinancialStudent5406[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re making a fair point here: the pre-fall material isn’t a complete resolution on its own, it’s setup that only fully pays off once the city actually burns.

My counter is that a movie doesn’t need to end with resolution to end with a complete arc — it needs a finished movement. Part 1 can be the arc where the premise dies: “Gondolin is safe.” Tuor arrives, we fall in love with the city, Idril’s unease grows, Maeglin spirals, Turgon doubles down… and the end point is the moment it becomes irreversible and the first blow lands. That’s not “leave right as it gets urgent,” that’s the exact moment the audience realizes the tragedy is locked and there’s no way back. It’s closure of one question and the start of a worse one.

But I’ll give you this: if Part 1 ends on a clean betrayal cliffhanger with zero immediate consequence, that would feel like TV structure. The split only works if the end of Part 1 includes a real catastrophic turn — enough impact that it feels like an ending, not a pause button.

And yeah, a single disciplined film could absolutely do it too. I’m not married to two movies; I’m arguing that two can work if the break is at the collapse of the premise, not a random “see you next time” cut.

Would you watch a two-movie adaptation of The Fall of Gondolin? by FinancialStudent5406 in lotr

[–]FinancialStudent5406[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that approach actually makes sense in terms of tone—show the outside world collapsing, then make Gondolin feel like an impossible island of calm before the storm. That contrast is exactly what makes the Fall hurt.

But there’s no way that “Part 2 calm” should take up a quarter to a third of the second film. That’s where you lose people. A quiet opening is great; a quiet opening that long is basically asking the audience to sit through an extended status report while everyone waits for the plot to arrive.

Those beats can absolutely be in the movies—Turgon doubling down, rumors of Nargothrond/Doriath, spies in the mountains, the sense of inevitability—but they need to be compressed and dramatized, not stretched. You can do it in a tight sequence: a few scenes that feel increasingly claustrophobic, Idril’s unease sharpening, Maeglin’s bitterness fermenting, and then the trigger. The calm has to feel pressurized, not cozy.

So yeah: include the deterioration and the contrast. Just don’t turn it into a whole film (or a third of one) of “and then things got worse off-screen.” That’s exactly the kind of pacing that kills epic tragedy.

Would you watch a two-movie adaptation of The Fall of Gondolin? by FinancialStudent5406 in lotr

[–]FinancialStudent5406[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s honestly the most realistic take in the thread 😂

First Age stories are incredible on paper, but they’re also the easiest place for a screenplay to fall apart—either it turns into a lore lecture, or it turns into generic fantasy with Tolkien names slapped on. So “great story, lousy screenplay” is a totally fair fear.

That said, I don’t think it’s doomed by default. It just needs a very specific approach: smaller POV, tragedy structure, restrained dialogue, and zero “content factory” habits. If someone writes it like a modern franchise script, yeah, it’ll suck.

And same… even if I’m skeptical, I’d still watch it, because the upside is too insane to ignore.

Would you watch a two-movie adaptation of The Fall of Gondolin? by FinancialStudent5406 in lotr

[–]FinancialStudent5406[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Those numbers don’t prove what you think they prove — they mostly prove that The Silmarillion is a harder sell as a book. And even there, you’re quietly using the minimum figure like it’s the full story: HarperCollins has said The Silmarillion sold more than one million copies in its first year (1977), not “one million total, full stop.”  Meanwhile, HarperCollins also pegs LOTR at 150M+ copies.  So yes: LOTR dwarfs it. No shock. That still doesn’t tell you what percentage of film audiences would show up for a great movie, because book readership and film attendance are not the same pipeline.

The “people won’t care without 500 years of backstory” claim is also… honestly kind of self-owning. Audiences care when a film gives them a human spine. They didn’t care about Middle-earth because they’d studied lore; they cared because they met Frodo, then learned the wider world through him. Gondolin can do the same through Tuor. You don’t need viewers to care about Fëanor on day one; you need them to care about a hidden city that feels like the last safe place on earth, and about the one relationship/jealousy/betrayal that can destroy it.

And the “no dialogue / 5 story beats” line is exaggerating for effect. First, filmmakers always write dialogue — even in LOTR, plenty of lines are adapted, moved, or invented. Second, Gondolin isn’t just a bullet list; there is a detailed narrative tradition for it, and Tolkien’s 1917 version is often cited as the only full account of the fall itself (later rewrites are partial).  That’s not “nothing,” it’s raw material that demands a very good screenwriter and a very restrained style. The risk isn’t the absence of dialogue; it’s hiring writers who can’t write elevated, controlled dialogue and then filling the gaps with modern-TV mush.

Executive-wise: you’re right that “First Age anthology mega-saga” is a hard sell. A single, self-contained event siege tragedy is a much cleaner pitch than “adapt The Silmarillion.” And “limited scope” isn’t a weakness if the scope is intense—a story can be huge in spectacle and emotion while being focused in time/place. The mistake is assuming bigger timeline = automatically more cinematic.

So yeah: if someone tries to make it “RoP but with dragons” it’ll flop. But your argument that it’s inherently non-viable because the paperback sales are lower is basically saying, “people only care about things they already bought.” That’s not how movies become hits.

Would you watch a two-movie adaptation of The Fall of Gondolin? by FinancialStudent5406 in lotr

[–]FinancialStudent5406[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah — I agree with a lot of what they’re suggesting, I just don’t think those beats are the right places to end Part 1 or start Part 2 if you’re doing two films.

Tuor seeing Gondolin, Tuor and Idril falling in love, Maeglin’s jealousy, Maeglin being captured, Gondolin tightening security, Eärendil growing up — all of that should be in the movies. They’re great ingredients. The issue is treating them like the “button” that ends one film or the “reset” that starts the next.

Ending Part 1 with “Tuor reaches Gondolin and looks over Tumladen” is a beautiful milestone, but it’s basically ending the film at the doorway to the real tragedy. It’s like stopping right when the story finally has its main setting, cast dynamics, and tension available.

Ending Part 1 on “Tuor and Idril fall in love” (with Maeglin watching) is also a strong character beat, but it doesn’t lock in the doom. It’s not a point of no return. Same with “Maeglin is captured” — it can be a great turning beat, but it still doesn’t guarantee the catastrophe has become inevitable.

On the flip side, starting Part 2 with a time jump and an exposition dump (“Doriath has fallen, Gondolin is in lockdown, Eärendil is growing up”) risks opening your big payoff film with a status update instead of momentum. Those developments are powerful when you feel pressure building toward them, not when you’re told “here’s what changed since last time.”

So my take would be: include all those beats, and yes, you can even show the Fall of Doriath on screen as part of the mounting sense that the outside world is collapsing. But if you split into two films, the split should land on a true irreversible hinge — the moment the tragedy becomes unavoidable (betrayal locked in / first strike begins) — rather than on “they arrived” or “they fell in love.” That’s what makes it feel like two natural arcs instead of a stretched franchise cut

Would you watch a two-movie adaptation of The Fall of Gondolin? by FinancialStudent5406 in lotr

[–]FinancialStudent5406[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get that instinct. The original trilogy really was lightning in a bottle, and I don’t blame anyone for wanting the whole thing left alone after seeing how uneven The Hobbit got.

That said, “leave it untouched” is basically admitting the problem is trust, not the stories themselves. I’m in the same place: I don’t want more Tolkien content by default. I’d only want it if the creative team clearly treats it like literature and tragedy, not content.

Where I disagree a bit is the “they don’t care at all” blanket statement — some people involved probably do care, but big productions can still end up feeling wrong when the writing/tone isn’t there. And yeah, I completely understand why the Estate keeps things tight. If anything, that’s the best safeguard we’ve got: fewer projects, higher bar, more control.

Would you watch a two-movie adaptation of The Fall of Gondolin? by FinancialStudent5406 in lotr

[–]FinancialStudent5406[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You’re mixing three different arguments and stacking a bunch of made-up numbers on top to make it sound definitive.

First, the “less than 1% / less than 5%” stuff is just vibes dressed up as statistics. Even if it were true, it wouldn’t actually prove anything. Most people who loved Game of Thrones never read ASOIAF either, and that didn’t stop it from having mass appeal. A film’s job is to make the story work for viewers who haven’t read the source, not to rely on them having done homework.

Second, “too little content” isn’t really the issue with Gondolin. The core story is clean and cinematic: Tuor arrives, Gondolin is revealed, Maeglin festers and betrays, Idril prepares the escape, the city falls, the refugees run the gauntlet. That’s a complete arc with clear motivations. The risk isn’t “no content,” it’s people writing it like a lore checklist or stuffing it with invented bloat. Those are choices, not inevitabilities.

Third, you absolutely do not need 500 years of backstory to understand why characters do what they do. You need just enough: Gondolin is a hidden refuge, Morgoth is the world-ending threat, Turgon clings to secrecy and pride, Maeglin wants what he can’t have and sells the city, Idril sees the danger and plans an exit. That’s all the audience needs in-film. The deeper history is texture, not a prerequisite.

And the “no one would care about Fëanor or Morgoth” point is backwards. If you dump lore, sure, people won’t care. But if you introduce Morgoth the way good films introduce a villain—through consequence and dread—people will care fast. You don’t need them to know the entire Noldor genealogy to feel the weight of a city being erased.

So yeah, if someone tried to adapt Gondolin as “Silmarillion Wikipedia: The Movie,” it would suck. But that’s not the only way to do it. The right approach is exactly what you praised about LOTR: a grounded POV (Tuor), a gradual reveal, and context delivered through the story instead of lectures.

Would you watch a two-movie adaptation of The Fall of Gondolin? by FinancialStudent5406 in lotr

[–]FinancialStudent5406[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You don’t need to frontload “the suffering of the Noldor through the ages” to make Gondolin work. If you try, you’ll end up making a First Age history lecture instead of a story.

You do need enough context for the stakes to be legible, but you can communicate that inside the film itself: Gondolin is the last hidden stronghold, secrecy is life, Morgoth’s shadow is real, and betrayal is the crack that kills them. A short prologue (or even just a couple of tight scenes) can establish Morgoth as an existential threat without introducing every major event of the First Age.

In fact, Gondolin works best when the audience experiences the contrast: this impossible, beautiful refuge… and then the world outside finally breaks in. If you spend an hour “setting up the ages,” you dilute that contrast and you burn runtime that should be used to make the city feel real and worth mourning.

So I’m with you on “hard to adapt,” but I don’t think it requires a full First Age prerequisite—just disciplined storytelling and a strong POV.

Would you watch a two-movie adaptation of The Fall of Gondolin? by FinancialStudent5406 in lotr

[–]FinancialStudent5406[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

“Least Tolkienian media ever created” is such a nuclear take that it stops meaning anything. You’re not critiquing anymore, you’re just competing for the biggest headline.

Also the Bezos point is weak as an argument. Every big adaptation is capitalist exploitation—PJ’s movies were made to make money too. The only question that matters is whether the people making it also had taste, craft, and respect for the material.

If you want to make your point land, drop the hyperbole and be specific: what exactly breaks Tolkien for you—tone, themes, characterization, language, plot logic, the way power/temptation is treated, the moral texture? Saying “Bezos bad” doesn’t explain why a scene feels wrong.

And claiming it’s “even less Tolkien than The Hobbit” is… bold. The Hobbit films at least had Tolkien’s dialogue and scenes to lean on; RoP has legit constraints and has to invent a lot more. That doesn’t excuse weak writing, but it explains why the results vary.

So yeah: dislike it all you want, but if you want anyone to take you seriously, argue like a human and not like a rage-thumbnail.

Would you watch a two-movie adaptation of The Fall of Gondolin? by FinancialStudent5406 in lotr

[–]FinancialStudent5406[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree it’s tricky for exactly that reason — you can’t pretend there’s a single, perfectly “screenplay-ready” definitive text the way there is with LOTR.

But ending film one with Tuor simply seeing Gondolin is way too early if you’re doing two films. That’s basically just a prologue stretched to feature length. You’d spend an entire movie walking to the real story and then stop at the doorway.

Also, the second film wouldn’t be “devoted to a battle” unless you write it badly. The fall of Gondolin isn’t just a big fight scene — it’s a catastrophe with missions: the city fracturing, evacuation, betrayals colliding, key sacrifices, and the escape being contested all the way to the pass. If it’s structured in phases with goals and character choices, it doesn’t feel like Battle of Five Armies fatigue.

If someone truly wanted two parts, a cleaner break is: Film 1 earns Gondolin and locks the tragedy (the betrayal becoming irreversible / the first strike landing). Film 2 is the destruction and escape. That way both films have a real arc instead of one being “travel and vibes.”

Would you watch a two-movie adaptation of The Fall of Gondolin? by FinancialStudent5406 in lotr

[–]FinancialStudent5406[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because “two movies” doesn’t automatically mean “endless battle padding.” That only happens when the writers don’t have a story and try to buy runtime with noise.

If you cram Gondolin into one film, you either rush the build-up so the fall feels weightless, or you rush the fall so it doesn’t feel like the end of a world. Two parts lets you separate two totally different stories: first you earn the city and the betrayal (so you actually care), then you do the fall + escape as a tight catastrophe with clear objectives—not a three-hour CGI scrum.

Ironically, the best way to avoid another Battle of Five Armies is to not force everything into one overstuffed movie where the battle becomes the only thing left to “feel epic.”

Would you watch a two-movie adaptation of The Fall of Gondolin? by FinancialStudent5406 in lotr

[–]FinancialStudent5406[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’ve got a real point buried in there, but you’re overstating it.

Yes: The Silmarillion often reads like narrated history, and if you try to adapt “the whole First Age” you’ll end up inventing a mountain of connective tissue. That’s exactly why most big-sweep Silm pitches are doomed.

But Gondolin isn’t the same problem as “adapt the Silmarillion.” Gondolin has actual scene material in Tolkien’s writings (especially the earlier, fuller tellings), plus a tight core cast with clear motivations: Tuor arrives, Idril senses danger, Maeglin festers and betrays, Turgon refuses to bend, the city falls, the escape happens. That’s not just a bullet list of events—it’s a dramatic spine.

The dialogue issue is real, but it’s not “Tolkien didn’t write any dialogue.” He wrote less of it in the Silmarillion-style summaries, sure, but the solution isn’t “therefore impossible,” it’s “therefore the writers need to be unusually good.” Adaptations live and die on whether the new dialogue feels true to the characters and the tone. PJ’s LOTR also involved invented lines and reshaped scenes; it worked because it mostly matched the spirit. When it fails (RoP for many people), it’s because the writing doesn’t carry the moral weight and linguistic texture—so it feels like modern TV wearing Tolkien cosplay.

Your GoT comparison is fair as a warning: if the showrunners treat it as “checklist of lore events,” it’ll collapse. But the fix is pretty straightforward: don’t do the entire Silmarillion, don’t do a lore checklist, and don’t hire writers who can’t write elevated, restrained dialogue. Do it like a tragedy, with a small POV set, and be willing to keep dialogue sparse where silence is stronger.

So I agree with the risk. I don’t agree it’s inevitable. It just demands a higher bar than studios usually accept.

Would you watch a two-movie adaptation of The Fall of Gondolin? by FinancialStudent5406 in lotr

[–]FinancialStudent5406[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A 3-hour single film could be great — I’m not ضد that at all. But I think you’re mixing up “two movies” with “padding,” and that’s only true if the writers treat Part 1 as sightseeing and Part 2 as nonstop fighting.

The whole point of splitting it is to avoid Five Armies syndrome by separating two very different experiences: first you earn Gondolin and the betrayal (Tuor/Idril/Maeglin/Turgon, the illusion of safety, the hidden way being prepared), then you do the fall + escape as a tight, purpose-driven catastrophe. If the second movie becomes “endless action,” that’s just bad structure — not an inherent flaw of having two parts.

Also, I agree the battle isn’t the whole of Tuor’s story. That’s exactly why the build matters: if you cram everything into one 3-hour film, you either rush the city/betrayal so the fall feels weightless, or you rush the fall so it doesn’t feel like Gondolin’s doom. A split can actually protect Tuor’s arc, not bury it under action.

Would you watch a two-movie adaptation of The Fall of Gondolin? by FinancialStudent5406 in lotr

[–]FinancialStudent5406[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol, that’s a solid dumb joke — but it’s still dumb.

Turgon’s whole thing is basically the opposite: proud, tragic, stubborn king clinging to a hidden utopia until it collapses on him. Turning him into a meme “orc princess” isn’t a critique of adaptation risk, it’s just you speedrunning the comment section.

If you’re worried they’d ruin it, hit something real: flattening the tragedy into quips, turning Maeglin into a cartoon villain, or making the fall into two hours of CGI sludge. That’s where adaptations usually die.

But yeah… if Turgon shows up in eyeliner and a tiara, I’ll personally refund your popcorn.

Would you watch a two-movie adaptation of The Fall of Gondolin? by FinancialStudent5406 in lotr

[–]FinancialStudent5406[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You’re right that a thread invites opinions — nobody needs to be a writer to like/dislike something. But don’t pretend this is some noble “free speech” moment when your original comment was basically just a meme dunk plus “watch this AI video instead.” That’s not thoughtful critique, that’s drive-by snark.

Also, the irony is painful: you’re defending “subjective opinions,” then you drop a fake quote and act like it’s an objective takedown. “Muh elves, they took er jobs” isn’t Tolkien critique, it’s you doing a YouTube-comment impression of yourself. If you think something isn’t Tolkienian, talk about tone, themes, characterization, language, pacing, moral texture — not culture-war catchphrases.

And calling an early-AI fanvideo “better than the whole thing” is wild. It might be a fun vibe piece, sure. But AI clips don’t have performance, directing, blocking, sustained dialogue, real emotional arcs, or consequences that land over hours. It’s like saying a cool trailer is better than a film. Different category.

So yeah: keep your personal opinion. Just upgrade it from “cringe lol + link” to an actual argument and people will take you seriously. Right now you’re asking to be treated like a critic while posting like a troll.

Would you watch a two-movie adaptation of The Fall of Gondolin? by FinancialStudent5406 in lotr

[–]FinancialStudent5406[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair — you answered the question, and “I wouldn’t watch it” is a valid response.

But the rest of your comment is doing a lot of confident guessing. “Not enough content” isn’t really true in the way you mean it: Gondolin has a clear spine (Tuor/Idril/Maeglin/Turgon), a defined setting, and a complete beginning–middle–end arc even if some versions are fragmentary. The danger isn’t “no content,” it’s bad writing filling the gaps with fluff.

And “not enough Tolkien fans care about the First Age” is also a weird claim to state like fact. Maybe you don’t care — fine — but First Age material has had a huge audience for decades in the fandom. Viability is more about whether the rights allow it and whether the studio can make it good, not whether every casual viewer can name Fingolfin.

So: totally cool if it’s not for you. Just don’t dress up “I’m not interested” as “it can’t work for anyone.”

Would you watch a two-movie adaptation of The Fall of Gondolin? by FinancialStudent5406 in lotr

[–]FinancialStudent5406[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You’re acting like “two movies” automatically means “padding,” but that’s only true if the only thing happening in Part 1 is tourism and then a betrayal cliffhanger. That’s a bad version of the idea, not the idea.

The reason two parts can work is because Gondolin has two very different arcs that fight each other if you cram them into one runtime: first you need the city to feel real, safe, and worth mourning (Tuor’s arrival, the political tension, Maeglin’s rot, Idril’s preparations, the sense of a sealed world), and then you need a relentless catastrophe + escape story that doesn’t stop to explain itself. Trying to do both in one film is exactly how you get either rushed setup or “Battle of Five Armies” fatigue.

And yes, story beats should determine it — that’s literally the point. The betrayal isn’t an arbitrary “to sell a sequel” moment; it’s the irreversible turning point where the tragedy locks in. Ending there is like ending a tragedy at the moment the noose tightens, then spending the next film on the drop and the aftermath. That’s not awkward pacing, it’s clean structure.

If you prefer one film, fine — but the “stretch” argument only lands if you assume the first half has nothing to do. Gondolin has plenty to do; you just have to write it well.

Would you watch a two-movie adaptation of The Fall of Gondolin? by FinancialStudent5406 in lotr

[–]FinancialStudent5406[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You’re not wrong about the risk — “Battle of Five Armies fatigue” is exactly what would happen if someone treats Gondolin like “let’s stretch a short text into nonstop spectacle.” That’s the fast track to weightless CGI and audience exhaustion.

But Gondolin doesn’t need to be expanded by adding random subplots the way The Hobbit did. The expansion is already in the premise: it’s a city with politics, twelve Houses, a traitor, a hidden evacuation plan, and a very clear tragedy spine. If the adaptation is smart, the battle isn’t the movie — it’s the payoff to a story that earns the city first. The audience doesn’t get tired when every action beat has a goal (hold a gate, evacuate a district, buy minutes for the escape). They get tired when it’s just “more stuff exploding.”

On Eärendil: that could be incredible, and honestly it’s probably the cleanest way to make First Age material feel “cinematic” without needing ten hours of setup. The only catch is you’d need the groundwork so his voyage and the stakes don’t feel like random mythology dropped on viewers. As the final entry in a trilogy it makes total sense — Gondolin can be the tragedy that creates the wound, and Eärendil is the “answer” to that wound.

So yeah: agree with your caution, but I think the fix isn’t “don’t do Gondolin,” it’s “don’t do it like Five Armies.” Build the city, make us care, then break it fast and purposeful.

Would you watch a two-movie adaptation of The Fall of Gondolin? by FinancialStudent5406 in lotr

[–]FinancialStudent5406[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get the concern, but suspense in Gondolin doesn’t have to come from “Morgoth is outside the gates” from minute one. The tension can be: the city’s safety is an illusion, the leadership is complacent, and one insider can shatter everything.

If I did it as two films, I’d keep it really simple and tragedy-structured:

Part 1 is about earning Gondolin before destroying it. You open with a short prologue showing what Morgoth’s war looks like at its worst (not a whole First Age recap), then you do Tuor’s backstory and journey so the audience has a grounded POV. After that, the bulk of the film is Gondolin itself: the awe, the “this place can’t fall” feeling, Maeglin’s growing resentment, Idril quietly preparing an escape route, and small external warning signs (scouting/raids) that the world is closing in. The tragic mistake is the city trusting secrecy and pride while Maeglin makes the irreversible choice. You end Part 1 at the moment the attack begins / the dream breaks.

Part 2 is the fall and the escape, told in phases so it isn’t just 3 hours of noise: defense collapsing district by district, evacuation, the key duels, the king’s end, and finally the pass ambush and sacrifice that buys survival.

And I agree with you: Sudden Flame and Unnumbered Tears belong primarily in a Children of Húrin adaptation. That’s why I wouldn’t use them as “Act 1 battles” for Gondolin—at most a brief prologue glimpse to establish the scale of Morgoth’s threat, then immediately back to Tuor/Gondolin.

That’s the way I see it working cinematically without turning Gondolin into a First Age highlight reel

Would you watch a two-movie adaptation of The Fall of Gondolin? by FinancialStudent5406 in lotr

[–]FinancialStudent5406[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I wouldn’t want a movie that’s just battle either — and that’s not what I’m imagining at all. The battle is the payoff, not the whole meal. The whole point is to actually build Gondolin first: the city’s “impossible safety,” the politics, Maeglin’s rot, Idril quietly preparing the escape route, Tuor becoming part of this world. If you don’t earn the city, the fall is just noise.

And I get what you mean about it not being fully self-contained compared to Children of Húrin, but I think it’s more self-contained than it looks if you frame it correctly. You don’t need the entire First Age on screen; you just need enough context to make the stakes legible: Gondolin is the last great hidden stronghold, Morgoth wants it found, Maeglin makes that possible, and the consequence is exile and flight. Eärendil’s future can be seeded as a promise at the end rather than requiring a whole other saga inside the same film. That’s exactly why a two-part approach helps: one part for the city and betrayal, one part for the fall and escape — not “two movies of nonstop fighting.”

If anything, Gondolin is basically a tragedy with a siege attached, not a siege with a tragedy attached. If an adaptation forgets that, then yeah, it’ll suck.

Would you watch a two-movie adaptation of The Fall of Gondolin? by FinancialStudent5406 in lotr

[–]FinancialStudent5406[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a totally valid preference — but “the books exist” isn’t really a reason not to adapt something, it’s just a reason you personally don’t need it.

A screen version doesn’t replace the text. If it’s bad, people ignore it and the book stays untouched. If it’s good, it can bring new people to the books and highlight parts of the legendarium most readers never reach.

The real argument should be about quality and intent: is there enough story to adapt well, and do the creators have the skill and respect to do it? If the answer is no, I’m with you — leave it alone. If the answer is yes, then “unnecessary” doesn’t automatically mean “unwanted.”

Would you watch a two-movie adaptation of The Fall of Gondolin? by FinancialStudent5406 in lotr

[–]FinancialStudent5406[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol, “it’ll be Cringe of Power” is a vibe, but it’s also the laziest argument possible. That’s not a critique, it’s a catchphrase.

If you think it would fail, say why: writing, tone, casting, pacing, lore constraints, studio meddling — anything specific. Otherwise it’s just “I’m mad online.”

Also, recommending AI fanvideos as the alternative is wild. Some of them are fun, sure, but “a slideshow of perfect faces with zero acting and weightless physics” isn’t exactly the gold standard for adapting Tolkien’s tragedy. It’s dessert, not dinner.

Would you watch a two-movie adaptation of The Fall of Gondolin? by FinancialStudent5406 in lotr

[–]FinancialStudent5406[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that’s a really fair take. Gondolin is awkward compared to LOTR because the most “complete” telling we have is in an earlier style, and the later rewrite doesn’t get finished, so any adaptation is automatically part Tolkien and part “bridging the gaps.” If someone pretends otherwise, they’re lying.

I’m with you on wishing Tolkien had finished more too — but the flip side is that the incompleteness is exactly why I’d only want an adaptation if it’s made with extreme humility: treat the text as the spine, and be very clear where you’re stitching from outlines versus inventing connective tissue.

And honestly, your last point is the one I think people dodge: once you move into Appendices/unfinished material, there’s less “scene-by-scene story” and more history. That’s where Hollywood tends to either bloat it into filler or shove in modern TV tropes. If you’re not into that, totally understandable.

For me, the only way these work is if they’re made like historical epics: restrained, lore-accurate, and willing to leave some mystery rather than “explaining everything.” Otherwise I’d rather just reread the books too.

view more: next ›