After examining the Pictures of the March of the Host of Valinor in the Atlas of Middle Earth, I noticed that, not only did the Eagles of the Crissaegrim join the Host of Valinor but some men from Brethil, and the Mountains of Dor-Lomin, and From the Ered Luin Marched with the host.
Is there any where that tells of the Number or of the Leaders of these scattered people that joined the war of wrath??
From: Gondolin | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tolkien did not say who exactly did what in The War of Wrath. He left a huge gap here on purpose. When he brings us right up to the brink of answers, I don't think he meant for us to not take small leaps of logic and understanding. However, when he leaves pages of history blank, it is for us to fathom why it is so and not just try to fill in the pages with guesses.
My question is, do we even know what was Tolkien's intention in leaving this part of his story so thin? I highly doubt it was because he never got to it, or his imagination failed him at this point.
Dramatically, it serves the setting of the story (an ancient tale recounted many millennia later). It makes the Valar seem more awe-inspiring, mysterious and legendary -- almost unfathomable.
From: Vinya-Tárilos | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
You know, that is Tolkien's stroke of pure genius at work. He leaves so much up to the imagination. That's why Sauron is so, I guess, scary you might say. You are always left to guess what he looked like. Same thing with most characters. He only gives you broad characterists (such as the description of Frodo Gandalf left for Butterbur).
I bet that he wanted the reader to imagine what everything looked like, make it more personal to themselves. That's most likely the case why he didn't want the books made into movies, it takes away that aspect of the books.
Just some thoughts of my own.
From: Ririe, Idaho | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: That's most likely the case why he didn't want the books made into movies, it takes away that aspect of the books.
I don't want to try and tangent (spelling?) this thread in any way, but i don't think Tolkien ever said he did'nt want movies to be made, just he wanted them made with respect to the story.
From: England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
Actually, Tolkien did want it to be made into a movie, at least he's welcoming the idea of an animated motion picture:
quote:As far as I am concerned personally, I should welcome the idea of an animated motion picture, with all the risk of vulgarization .... I think I should find vulgarization less painfull than the sillification achieved by the B.B.C.
Source: The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, # 198.
What he does object to, as Eonwe already surmised, is the fact that his work an he himself as the author, are not treated with respect, as shown already in the Letter quoted above, but also in his commentary on the BBC adaptation in Letter # 194. The first reaction we read on the synopsis of the LotR made for the animated movie is critical, but Tolkien is "quite prepared to play ball" (Letter # 201). Later on, in his reaction on the story-line for the animation Tolkien writes:
quote:I feel very unhappy about the extreme silliness and incompetence of Z* and his complete lack of respect for the original (it seems wilfully wrong without discernible technical reasons at nearly every point). But I need, and shall soon need very much indeed, money, and I am conscious of your rights and interests; so that I shall endeavour to restrain myself, and avoid all avoidable offence.
Letter # 207 * Z= Morton Grady Zimmerman, the writer of the story-line.
Finally, in Letter # 210, Tolkien gives a lengthy commentary on the story-line in which he is highly critical of Zimmerman's work. He ends his commentary with the words:
quote:Part III.... is totally unacceptable to me, as a whole and in detail. If it is meant as notes only for a section of something like the pictorial length of I and II, then in the filling out it must be brought into relation with the book, and its gross alterations of that corrected. If it is meant to represent only a kind of short finale, then all I can say is: The Lord of the Rings cannot be garbled like that.
So, in conclusion we could say, that Tolkien liked the idea of (animated) adaptation, but when it came to the actual adaptation, he greatly disliked the results.
One trouble is though, that Tolkien himself constantly edited and re-edited his works, he even had intense discussions with the publishers and friends about what to put in and what to leave out of the Lotr and with the Silmarillion it is difficult to know which version of his legends Tolkien preferred at times! Let alone what he might have managed had the Prof been a professional writer. If one did make a film of Lotr which was word for word faithful to the book, maybe Tolkien wouldn't have been too keen on that, either!
From: Bagshot Row, Hobbiton, The Shire! | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
If interested, here's what I dug up so far (some of what Earendilyon already posted is repeated): at first Tolkien was willing, if not enthusiastic, to allow a proposed animated motion-picture of The Lord of the Rings to go forward. In 1957 he wrote:
quote: 'As far as I am concerned personally, I should welcome the idea of an animated motion picture, with all the risk of vulgarization; and that quite apart from the glint of money, though on the brink of retirement that is not an unpleasant possibility. I think I should find vulgarization less painful than the sillification achieved by the B.B.C.'
Tolkien wrote that he was in need of money in 1958, and in any case, as already noted, he did mind the film treatment he was offered at the time ('Z' is Morton Grady Zimmerman, who did the synopsis of the proposed film of The Lord of the Rings).
quote: 'I am very unhappy about the extreme silliness and incompetence of Z and his complete lack of respect for the original (it seems wilfully wrong without discernable technical reasons at nearly every point). But I need, and shall soon need very much indeed, money, and I am conscious of your rights and interests; so that I shall endeavour to restrain myself, and avoid all avoidable offence.' JRRT, 1958 to Rayner Unwin
In 1957 Tolkien had also written: 'Stanley U. and I have agreed on our policy: Art or Cash. Either very profitable terms indeed; or absolute author's veto on objectionable features or alterations.'
Of course this film was not made. But that got the ball rolling it seems, and the Unwins (Tolkien's publishers) were obviously involved. In 1961 Rayner reminded Tolkien of the policy he had agreed to with Stanley Unwin: cash or Kudos (source Hammond and Scull) when Rembrandt Films became interested in cartoon films of the Hobbit. Tolkien left it to Rayner, stating:
quote: 'I clearly understand that one must either turn the matter down or put up with many objectionable things that they are sure to perpetrate in their production. I am sure advice or argument would be quite unavailing (except to make them throw the whole thing up) and I have no time for either. In any case I do not feel so deeply about The Hobbit; and anyway I am now mainly dependent for my support on my earnings as an author I feel justified in sinking my feelings in return for cash.'
In August 1964 Tolkien wrote in a letter to Miss Ward (this letter came up for auction).
quote: 'I am delighted to hear of your great enjoyment of my book. As for Television, however, I am personally averse to dramatizations of my work, especially The Lord of the Rings, which is too long for reproduction without severe cutting and editing; in my view destructive, or at best severely damaging to a complicated but closely-woven story. But in such matters the inerests of my publishers must be considered. They are in any case primarily concerned in all questions of reproduction by any process (vide the copyright notice).'
In September 1967 Rayner Unwin sent Tolkien various letters from their American agent, a Mr. Swanson: 'Swanson has also written about an offer for film rights of the Lord of the Rings.' (H&S). In November, Rayner, having just returned from the United States, writes to Tolkien, stating that he thinks: 'agreement is close with United Artists for the Lord of the Rings film rights.'
In 1969 (rumors of a Tolkien-based film had surfaced, in connection with the Beatles) Rayner Unwin again reminded Tolkien of their agreement (Hammond and Scull): that if a film brings cash, they will waive any kudos. He points out to Tolkien that whatever the film is like: 'the book remains inviolable and that is the main thing. What they do with the property in other media will, I regret to say, be entirely their responsibility from an aesthetic point of view, will only vary in degrees between bad at best and execrable at the worst.'
Probably in June 1969 Tolkien wrote a letter about a proposed film, quoted by Joy Hill:
quote: 'No film nor any 'version' in another medium could appear satisfactory to any devoted and attentive reader. On the other hand some of the greater pictorial and dramatic scenes could, with modern resources, be a moving experience. All possible precautions have been taken that the story should be presented without serious mutilation and without alteration or alterations.' JRRT, Hammond and Scull
I have no idea what JRRT means with respect to any 'precautions' here.
It does appear that JRRT sold the film rights in 1969. Then there is the tax bill issue: I could not find this mentioned in a source I was very confident in, but recently I asked William Hicklin about it, and his answer appears below. It might be noted that the original agreement of 1969 is said to be a notoriously difficult document. Rayner Unwin, in reference to this, wrote in his memoirs: 'A negotiation of nearly two years’ duration [i.e., 1967-69] that was eventually consummated in a fifty-page contract, the complexities and uncertainties of which have dogged the publishers and the author’s estate ever since.' These memoirs were published in 1999.
quote: William Hicklin wrote: 'The tax bill story has been repeated often in the press- and although the press is notoriously unreliable on these things, I believe the tax bill line appeared in the very accurate story printed in 2001 in The Financial Times, which for the first time (TMK) gave the correct cash consideration and the fact that there were residuals.
The problem which afflicted Tolkien in the late 1960's was that the Ballantine paperbacks and ensuing Tolkien Craze generated royalties vastly beyond anything he had anticipated even in 1962- and *suddenly* exposed him to Surtax. (The Inland Revenue, at least back then, had a nasty habit of 'surprising' you with a bill- calculated on an accrual, not a cash, basis).'
Mr. Hicklin is a lawyer (not for the Tolkien Estate). I am not at all knowledgeable enough in the matter to do more than present his answer here.
There might be more on the question in general, but as I say, I found this much anyway.
War of Wrath was such a "divine" event (and long, it lasted something like 83 years) that it's hard for us to even imagine what happened. There was probably conventional warfare first, just good old-fashioned elves, men and dwarves versus orcs, trolls and easterlings. Then came winged dragons and Eärendil. Morgoth began to understand that he is screwed. He was a vala, and there was a lot of maiar on both sides, so the powers of both sides were really "godly". Morgoth probably used nearly all of his power - he raised mountains, destroyed lands, made evil things. Valar maybe fought against Morgoth by sinking Beleriand (after it was evacuated) bit by bit - Ulmo's strenght protected waters, and Morgoth's forces didn't really had a way to cross large bodies of water. Angband was eventually drowned, after Anchalogon destroyed the fortress by falling (that was a damn big dragon!).
That is of course, just speculation. The War of Warth was a grand finale of Beleriandic wars. Everyone was involved, including the powers that had once shaped the Arda.
From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged |