LotR Coming to Amazon TV

[Lvl 2 Expert]

There is no way in which putting the cast of LOTR in thongs would be an improvement.

Oops...

Lord of the Strings indeed...

So, by that logic, Smeagol must have been one of the mightiest people in Middle-Earth considering how easily he fell to the Ring's influence? No, he was not, and the Ring's corruption never had anything to do with how "mighty" the person was--it came down to strength of will and nothing else.

Well, it did take him hundreds of years to turn into something that's not nearly a nazgul/ringwraith...

[Vinyadan]

Well, it did take jim hundreds of years to turn into something that's not nearly a nazgul/ringwraith...

Only too true, I fear,’ said Gandalf. ‘But there was something else in it, I think, which you don’t see yet. Even Gollum was not wholly ruined. He had proved tougher than even one of the Wise would have guessed -as a hobbit might. There was a little corner of his mind that was still his own, and light came through it, as through a chink in the dark: light out of the past. It was actually pleasant, I think, to hear a kindly voice again, bringing up memories of wind, and trees, and sun on the grass, and such forgotten things.
‘But that, of course, would only make the evil part of him angrier in the end - unless it could be conquered. Unless it could be cured.’ Gandalf sighed. ‘Alas! there is little hope of that for him. Yet not no hope. No, not though he possessed the Ring so long, almost as far back as he can remember. For it was long since he had worn it much: in the black darkness it was seldom needed. Certainly he had never “faded”. He is thin and tough still. But the thing was eating up his mind, of course, and the torment had become almost unbearable.

[BannedInSchool]

In the books a lot of the "evil" is more giving in to darker impulses than simply magical mind control. Yeah, it's hard to show that on film, but making it visible and external removes the theme of resisting the seeds of evil within ones self.

[Keltest]

So, by that logic, Smeagol must have been one of the mightiest people in Middle-Earth considering how easily he fell to the Ring's influence? No, he was not, and the Ring's corruption never had anything to do with how "mighty" the person was--it came down to strength of will and nothing else.

I'm almost certain that Galdalf outright says in the books that he is one of the worst people to carry the ring because he would be one of the first to fall to its temptations if he did.

Aragorn, Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond, all of these people are very aware that they cannot safely handle the ring, because they can use it very effectively. Its not just that powerful people have weaker wills, its that the ring has more to offer to them. Frodo and Sam wear the ring a few times, and all they can really do with it, even at the peak of its power, is go invisible and gain a bit of an aura of menace. Aragorn and the Wise though have the knowledge and power to actually use the ring, and thus have far more to be tempted by.

[Vinyadan]

I'm almost certain that Galdalf outright says in the books that he is one of the worst people to carry the ring because he would be one of the first to fall to its temptations if he did.

‘But I have so little of any of these things! You are wise and powerful. Will you not take the Ring?’
‘No!’ cried Gandalf, springing to his feet. ‘With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly.’ His eyes flashed and his face was lit as by a fire within. ‘Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too great, for my strength. I shall have such need of it. Great perils lie before me.’

Or maybe it was Elrond:

'Alas, no,' said Elrond. 'We cannot use the Ruling Ring. That we now know too well. It belongs to Sauron and was made by him alone, and is altogether evil. Its strength, Boromir, is too great for anyone to wield at will, save only those who have already a great power of their own. But for them it holds an even deadlier peril. The very desire of it corrupts the heart. Consider Saruman. If any of the Wise should with this Ring overthrow the Lord of Mordor, using his own arts, he would then set himself on Sauron's throne, and yet another Dark Lord would appear. And that is another reason why the Ring should be destroyed: as long as it is in the world it will be a danger even to the Wise. For nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so. I fear to take the Ring to hide it. I will not take the Ring to wield it.'

[factotum]

There's an absolute Grand Canyon-sized gulf between "Don't let me wield the Ring, for it will corrupt me and I will become another Dark Lord" and "Don't let me touch the Ring, for even the mere feel of its metal will irrevocably corrupt me". I'll also note that both Gandalf and Galadriel refused the Ring when it was freely offered by Frodo, but picking it up to move it from one place to another--say, from the hearth to Frodo's hand--is not tantamount to taking it and using its power.

[Keltest]

There's an absolute Grand Canyon-sized gulf between "Don't let me wield the Ring, for it will corrupt me and I will become another Dark Lord" and "Don't let me touch the Ring, for even the mere feel of its metal will irrevocably corrupt me". I'll also note that both Gandalf and Galadriel refused the Ring when it was freely offered by Frodo, but picking it up to move it from one place to another--say, from the hearth to Frodo's hand--is not tantamount to taking it and using its power.

Gandalf never says he cant touch the ring though. He avoids messing around with it when he isn't sure what it is, and he handles it with tongs when its actively in the middle of a fire. That's just you extrapolating something that isn't really there.

[Lord Joeltion]

Gandalf never says he cant touch the ring though. He avoids messing around with it when he isn't sure what it is, and he handles it with tongs when its actively in the middle of a fire. That's just you extrapolating something that isn't really there.

Yeah, I have to agree there. Yes, in the movie the appearance of the ring is depicted a tad more ominous and dangerous than in the books (for obvious reasons); but it's never treated like some sort of Pandora's Box. Gandalf, even in the books, is the one that shows more repulsion towards the arctifact than anyone else. And in the movie he never treated it with fear, only despise and disgust. He doesn't want anyone (I assume, specially himself, or any of the magi) to mess around with it, other than Frodo.

The same situation can be said about the way he handled the Palantir, and "surprisingly" enough, he has basically the same reaction in the book and in the film. There's a reason he is called "the wisest".

[Silfir]

So, by that logic, Smeagol must have been one of the mightiest people in Middle-Earth considering how easily he fell to the Ring's influence? No, he was not, and the Ring's corruption never had anything to do with how "mighty" the person was--it came down to strength of will and nothing else.

Smeagol had no idea what the Ring was when he and Deagol found it - what kind of chance did he have?

It wasn't "strength of will" that Boromir lacked. If anything, his strength, self-confidence and ambition was precisely to blame - it made it easy for him to believe that he could surely master the Ring and use it against Sauron. No amount of cautioning by Elrond or Gandalf managed to clear that idea from his head. The same kind of thinking led to Isildur taking it, which ended in his death a mere two years later.

That's the common theme throughout - that the Ring is the most dangerous to the wise, powerful and strong of character, and that the most mundane, simple beings in Middle-Earth - hobbits - are the most able to resist it. Even if Gandalf briefly touches the ring as he passes it on to Frodo in the book, it's very clear in that scene that he's anxious not to let it pass into his possession at any point, and that's exactly what the scene in the movie gets across as well.

"Don't let me touch the Ring, for even the mere feel of its metal will irrevocably corrupt me"

No one ever says that in the movie, nor is it ever implied. It's all you.

[Reddish Mage]

Yeah, I have to agree there. Yes, in the movie the appearance of the ring is depicted a tad more ominous and dangerous than in the books (for obvious reasons); but it's never treated like some sort of Pandora's Box. Gandalf, even in the books, is the one that shows more repulsion towards the arctifact than anyone else. And in the movie he never treated it with fear, only despise and disgust. He doesn't want anyone (I assume, specially himself, or any of the magi) to mess around with it, other than Frodo.

The same situation can be said about the way he handled the Palantir, and "surprisingly" enough, he has basically the same reaction in the book and in the film. There's a reason he is called "the wisest".

I recall that Gandalf did, in fact, seem afraid to touch it, and that it was said that “the more powerful the more easily corrupted.” However, there is a question of how much to read into these lines.

Saying that Gandalf would be corrupted at a mere touch or that less powerful people were necessarily harder to corrupt would not follow logically or by any implication in the books. What made the hobbits potential bearers, and Frodo specifically, their own virtues and character.

[factotum]

No one ever says that in the movie, nor is it ever implied. It's all you.

Gandalf not being willing to touch the Ring after taking out of the fire doesn't imply that? Then I have to assume that movie Gandalf is a practical joker who was intending to drop a hot piece of metal into Frodo's hands, and must have been most disappointed when his trick didn't come off.

[Silfir]

Gandalf not being willing to touch the Ring after taking out of the fire doesn't imply that? Then I have to assume that movie Gandalf is a practical joker who was intending to drop a hot piece of metal into Frodo's hands, and must have been most disappointed when his trick didn't come off.

I have to assume you're being deliberately obtuse, then. Both book Gandalf and movie Gandalf are very clearly and unambiguously wizards, who can be expected to possess vast knowledge of magical rings. Even book Gandalf must have known the ring was cool to the touch before he touched it himself, however briefly - or do you think book Gandalf enjoys getting burned?

[factotum]

You can put your fingers near a hot metal object and realise it's hot without having to actually touch it and get burned. Not so much when you're holding it in tongs. Also, the movie Gandalf seemed quite relieved when the fire writing didn't actually appear immediately, so one wonders what the heck he thought it was at that point? Frodo wasn't dancing around with burned fingers, after all, so the Ring was clearly an object of power, and all the Great Rings apart from the One were accounted for.

[Noldo]

You can put your fingers near a hot metal object and realise it's hot without having to actually touch it and get burned. Not so much when you're holding it in tongs. Also, the movie Gandalf seemed quite relieved when the fire writing didn't actually appear immediately, so one wonders what the heck he thought it was at that point? Frodo wasn't dancing around with burned fingers, after all, so the Ring was clearly an object of power, and all the Great Rings apart from the One were accounted for.

Gandalf knew that the ring was magical, after all at the minimum it bestowed invisibility to the bearer. I always thought that he maintained hope that it would be a mere magical trinket (which as such could be resistant enough not to become hot in a mere fireplace) or at most one of the seven as for some reason I had the idea that the seven were merely presumed destroyed/lost to the dragons and their exact whereabouts were not know while the location of nine (at least relatively i.e. in the hands of the Nazgul) and the three (quite precisely, considering that Gandalf was carrying one on that very moment) was known.

[Drascin]

You can put your fingers near a hot metal object and realise it's hot without having to actually touch it and get burned. Not so much when you're holding it in tongs. Also, the movie Gandalf seemed quite relieved when the fire writing didn't actually appear immediately, so one wonders what the heck he thought it was at that point? Frodo wasn't dancing around with burned fingers, after all, so the Ring was clearly an object of power, and all the Great Rings apart from the One were accounted for.

A bit of misplaced hope, probably. Even the wisest probably like to hold a smidgen of hope that they will not have to send their friend on a horrible journey fraught with perils with Sauron's lapdogs at their heels.

Even in the book, if memory serves, he points out that he was pretty sure, but the fireplace test was the last proof he wanted to be 100% sure.

[Aotrs Commander]

Didn't even realise what this thread was about until I saw the other one...

I don't think the idea is inherently bad.

I can't.

Middle-Earth has been a fertile ground for RPGs for decades. Indeed, one of the two quests (both in Rolemaster) which I remember most fondly - and for that matter the very first RPG I played down at the wargames club when I started roleplaying PERIOD - were set in Middle-Earth. (The latter was even a prequel: the party sneaking into Mount Gundabad to destroy Grond (the early prototype, I think, though it might have been called Grond II - the original Grond being Morgoth's hammer of course (we are going back twenty-five years).)



However... On the other hand, we have Shadow of Mordor/War with our sexed up Shelob and our pretty-much-exactly-missing-the-main-theme-of-the-work. And I am unfortunately more pre-disposed to expect a TV show to be more towards that paradigm than not. (Though it is, at least, one of the digital distributers, who are likely to do a better job than the big TV networks. (The BBC I'd trust the most to do the job (because they aren't quite so focussed on making monbey over everything else), but they'd also not have anything like the money to do anything to a large level.)

I suppose we shall see.



Oh, and regarding Christopher Tolkien stepping down... Did no-one else notice his birth date on the link posted earlier? He's 93! He's probably had enough at this point, bless 'im! Heck, he's done well to stick at that long. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd be much more inclined to say that age had more to do with it and the franchising guff (though it might have been a contributing factor, of course).

[DavidSh]

I've been arguing with myself, but I think the Tale of Beren and Luthien could work as television, with production levels along the line of the recent Huntsmen movies. You'd have to simplify the backstory, though. No talk of Valinor or the Trees. Just that Morgoth stole the Silmarils from one set of elves, and Thingol thinks that recovering one is a suitably impossible task for anyone to win his daughter's hand.

[LordEntrails]

There's an absolute Grand Canyon-sized gulf between "Don't let me wield the Ring, for it will corrupt me and I will become another Dark Lord" and "Don't let me touch the Ring, for even the mere feel of its metal will irrevocably corrupt me". I'll also note that both Gandalf and Galadriel refused the Ring when it was freely offered by Frodo, but picking it up to move it from one place to another--say, from the hearth to Frodo's hand--is not tantamount to taking it and using its power.

Gandalf not being willing to touch the Ring after taking out of the fire doesn't imply that? Then I have to assume that movie Gandalf is a practical joker who was intending to drop a hot piece of metal into Frodo's hands, and must have been most disappointed when his trick didn't come off.

Why would Gandalf touch the ring if he doesn't have to? He doesn't have to, their are tongs their for him to use, so why not use them?

I mean when I go out in the woods, I know that if I touch the poison ivy it's not going to kill me. In fact it probably won't even make me itch unless I rub at it. But why would I be so totally foolish to touch it when I don't have to?

Perhaps the one of the smartest people in Middle Earth is (should be) foolish when he has no need to be?

[Lord Joeltion]

I recall that Gandalf did, in fact, seem afraid to touch it, and that it was said that “the more powerful the more easily corrupted.” However, there is a question of how much to read into these lines.

IMO, being wary/reluctant about something doesn't mean you are afraid of it. He surely feared the power it represented; but I'm sure it wasn't the object what he feared. He feared the consequences of having such a trinket in their possession, and how urgent it was to destroy it once and for all.

Saying Gandalf was "afraid" to touch the ring, is like saying an anti-bomb agent is "afraid" of nitroglycerin because he handles it with care. Despite the dialectical correctness of the statement, that doesn't imply they have fear of the object, or that they are actually scared of it going off. Those are different things to me. It's possible to be careful/reluctant and fearless at the same time. Just like a guy risking his life to deactivate a bomb.

tl;dr: "Fear" strikes me a little off for a description of Gandalf, either in the movie or the book.

Saying that Gandalf would be corrupted at a mere touch or that less powerful people were necessarily harder to corrupt would not follow logically or by any implication in the books. What made the hobbits potential bearers, and Frodo specifically, their own virtues and character.

No, it totally follows Tolkien's philosophy. People who deal with and posses greater power usually crave for more, because they need power to sustain their own power. Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, Boromir, Saruman, etc; they all were in desperate need of power (to put an end to the war), so naturally, they could be more easily corrupted.

On the other hand, Aragorn didn't even felt the urge to rule as much as Boromir, he only wanted to rush into the battle to protect the free people, but unlike the rulers of Gondor, he didn't wished the throne as an end; it was a means to end the war. Altho Numenorean blood surely helps for the saving throw. Then there's the hobbits, whose only ambition is to spend the days of their lives near the kitchen, with plenty food and a stool to put their hairy feet on. Not many ways of temptation there*. Remember that Tolkien was a Christian, so under his belief, evil corrupts through temptation. One does not fall to temptation unwillingly, it's temptation what makes you willing in the first place. Saruman wasn't corrupted because Sauron bewitched him; Saruman fell because he was weak and greed and fear got the best of him. And Gandalf explicitly believed Saruman was better than him in almost every aspect, even strength of will.

*And even Gollum resisted the Ring's machinations for the same lack of ambitions. The ring could only manipulate his fears, not his pride, because he lacked a big ego.

You can put your fingers near a hot metal object and realise it's hot without having to actually touch it and get burned. Not so much when you're holding it in tongs.

I would argue that, unless the thong is wet or too thick (and I mean thicker than a thick towel), a ring hot enough to actually burn my skin, would certainly feel warm to the touch. Even through a thick towel. But that's maybe because I'm used to dealing with hot pieces of metal

I've been arguing with myself, but I think the Tale of Beren and Luthien could work as television, with production levels along the line of the recent Huntsmen movies. You'd have to simplify the backstory, though. No talk of Valinor or the Trees. Just that Morgoth stole the Silmarils from one set of elves, and Thingol thinks that recovering one is a suitably impossible task for anyone to win his daughter's hand.

The story of Feanor isn't any more epic/complicated than all the stories in Game of Thrones. Or at least, it doesn't strike me so. Isn't GoT a story spanning a big chunk of life of the characters? The series seems to have no problem spanning throughout years and years in-universe. So do other series, like Vikings. I don't see the issue of telling the story of the Silmarils when most of the characters are nigh-immortal; so a couple dozen of centuries is like months for them.

Actually, a series format is way better than movie format, because that way you avoid them getting too old.

[factotum]

I would argue that, unless the thong is wet or too thick (and I mean thicker than a thick towel), a ring hot enough to actually burn my skin, would certainly feel warm to the touch.

The story of Feanor isn't any more epic/complicated than all the stories in Game of Thrones. Or at least, it doesn't strike me so. Isn't GoT a story spanning a big chunk of life of the characters?

I said "tongs", not a "thong"--they're two different things.

GoT is a weird one, actually. The TV series has been forced to go with a "one year per season" timescale because they had some very young actors who would age obviously during the course of the story, but the books (so far) have taken place over a much shorter timescale--I think the events in the last book to be published are only about 2 years after the events of the first book.

[Lord Joeltion]

I said "tongs", not a "thong"--they're two different things.

GoT is a weird one, actually. The TV series has been forced to go with a "one year per season" timescale because they had some very young actors who would age obviously during the course of the story, but the books (so far) have taken place over a much shorter timescale--I think the events in the last book to be published are only about 2 years after the events of the first book.

My bad, sorry It's been a while since I watched the extended edit.

I don't know GoT in the books, my point was that there are series that deal with timescales relatively similar a Silmarilion adaptation would need to tell the "whole" story. The main characters are basically the same, specially if they chose to tell the story from Feanor perspective. The fact that the Silmaril wars aren't that much detailed is a plus for a format that requires a lot of filler chapters to begin with.

[DavidSh]

I suppose you could start a story with Feanor just completing the Silmarils, and follow him up until his death. But that is before almost all of the action in Beleriand, and before the creation of the Sun and Moon. (A bit tricky to handle a world lit only by starlight, and, for a limited time and place, the Two Trees.) I would think you would need to move beyond to additional viewpoint characters who survive longer.

My real concern was then how much you would need to go into the details of the great migration west of the Elves.

[Lethologica]

The story of Feanor isn't any more epic/complicated than all the stories in Game of Thrones. Or at least, it doesn't strike me so. Isn't GoT a story spanning a big chunk of life of the characters? The series seems to have no problem spanning throughout years and years in-universe. So do other series, like Vikings. I don't see the issue of telling the story of the Silmarils when most of the characters are nigh-immortal; so a couple dozen of centuries is like months for them.

Actually, a series format is way better than movie format, because that way you avoid them getting too old.

The problem isn't the story per se, it's the setting. At least half the story is about superhumans in paradise being watched over by the next best thing to gods. Much of the rest is about superhumans in hellscape challenging the next best thing to Satan. These settings and characters would be extremely challenging and expensive to convey in a manner that approached their intended awe. Feanor is literally the greatest elf ever. To pull off that kind of magnificence requires walking a knife's edge between being incredibly lame and being incredibly cheesy (and therefore lame). And it's not just a few characters or a few events or a few places--it's everyone, everywhere, all the time, for everything that happens. In live action? On TV? Impossible, at least for now. The myth is so much greater in the mind.

That's why candidates like Beren and Luthien, and Turin Turambar, are brought up. There are lots of epic characters, settings, and events, but a fair amount of the time those stories are a dozen or so dudes in the woods going somewhere. The tone is more measured, and can actually fit on a screen. It wouldn't be easy, but it would be doable. Feanor is not doable.

[Drascin]

Calling Feanor the greatest elf ever seems like overstating things a bit. Maybe the most powerful. Certainly the greatest f*ckup .

As I have mentioned sometimes to my friends, one can always take heart in that no matter how badly you screw up, you will never screw up as hard as Curufinwë son of Finwë screwed up.

[Thufir]

A while back someone linked me to this thing someone did: https://silmarillionseries.com/
Obviously it's just this one guy's idea on it but I certainly found it to be an interesting take on how The Silmarillion could hypothetically be adapted.

[Lethologica]

Calling Feanor the greatest elf ever seems like overstating things a bit. Maybe the most powerful. Certainly the greatest f*ckup .

As I have mentioned sometimes to my friends, one can always take heart in that no matter how badly you screw up, you will never screw up as hard as Curufinwë son of Finwë screwed up.

Feanor was far from the best of his kin. But he was made the mightiest in body and mind, in beauty, understanding, skill, and subtlety, of all the children of Iluvatar. And as he was mighty, so were his f***ups mighty. To be great, Tolkien constantly informs us, is of itself no virtue.

[Vinyadan]

Feanor was far from the best of his kin. But he was made the mightiest in body and mind, in beauty, understanding, skill, and subtlety, of all the children of Iluvatar. And as he was mighty, so were his f***ups mighty. To be great, Tolkien constantly informs us, is of itself no virtue.

Was he, though? I mean, the most gifted. Tolkien says that he and Galadriel were the greatest Eldar in Valinor, and that Luthien was the greatest overall. Which makes sense, since she was capable of sending Morgoth to sleep.
Of course, this is all in secondary canon, but, you know.
Also, Dior might have been the fairest, but I would need to check the context for that.

[Lethologica]

Was he, though? I mean, the most gifted. Tolkien says that he and Galadriel were the greatest Eldar in Valinor, and that Luthien was the greatest overall. Which makes sense, since she was capable of sending Morgoth to sleep.
Of course, this is all in secondary canon, but, you know.
Also, Dior might have been the fairest, but I would need to check the context for that.

I mean, I'm basically quoting the text (cf. the first page of chapter 11, "Of The Sun And Moon And The Hiding Of Valinor"). I take your point as to Tolkien's comment, though, and of course Tolkien was never wholly consistent or fixed in his mythologizing of Arda.

[Lord Joeltion]

I suppose you could start a story with Feanor just completing the Silmarils, and follow him up until his death. But that is before almost all of the action in Beleriand, and before the creation of the Sun and Moon. (A bit tricky to handle a world lit only by starlight, and, for a limited time and place, the Two Trees.) I would think you would need to move beyond to additional viewpoint characters who survive longer.

My real concern was then how much you would need to go into the details of the great migration west of the Elves.

I said the story could be told from his perspective vs. the perspective of every other party that tried to oppose his people. I never meant Feanor would need to be the focus of the series necessarily. The no sun issue wouldn't be much of a problem because a) many series already use a lot of green screen (granted, with varying success); and b) Valinor shouldn't look like New Zealand. It should be a completely alien landscape for us mortals. So that would mean the CGI wouldn't even need to look that much realistic, just artistically appropiate.

On a side note, you know Tolkien's lore follows traditional mythology, right? Ancient people believed the sun and the moon (or stars) couldn't be the things that light up the sky because they were so small. Which means that Valinor's landscape doesn't necessarily need to be on perpetual twilight, even if the trees are gone. The Trees/Chariots where more a metaphore than an actual source of light. Or at least such an interpretation should be perfectly valid; given it was valid for the myths the Silmarillion was based on.

The problem isn't the story per se, it's the setting. At least half the story is about superhumans in paradise being watched over by the next best thing to gods. Much of the rest is about superhumans in hellscape challenging the next best thing to Satan. These settings and characters would be extremely challenging and expensive to convey in a manner that approached their intended awe. Feanor is literally the greatest elf ever. To pull off that kind of magnificence requires walking a knife's edge between being incredibly lame and being incredibly cheesy (and therefore lame). And it's not just a few characters or a few events or a few places--it's everyone, everywhere, all the time, for everything that happens. In live action? On TV? Impossible, at least for now. The myth is so much greater in the mind.

That's why candidates like Beren and Luthien, and Turin Turambar, are brought up. There are lots of epic characters, settings, and events, but a fair amount of the time those stories are a dozen or so dudes in the woods going somewhere. The tone is more measured, and can actually fit on a screen. It wouldn't be easy, but it would be doable. Feanor is not doable.

Superhumans you say? Like... you know... OUR superhumans that are already in TV? You seem to be misguided in your conception of Tolkien's setting. It's very very low magic setting. True, Galadriel was impressive on the movie; but she wasn't that impresive before (for once, she is a lot more wiser than her young self). Elves aren't that much impressive than, say... Asgardians from Marvel. I bet Loki could kick Feanor's ass anytime

Of course when we talk about Valinor and the Eldar we talk about races that are closer to Hercules and Theseus from the myths, but really, Tolkien's most difficult aspect to replicate is the artistic design; not their characters abilities/feats/mannerisms. Sure, "regular" humans are less of a hassle; but as long as they make a good work on architecture and direction in general; character interpretation should be relatively easier. I don't agree Feanor is harder to interpret than Captain America or Superman.

Also, keep in mind that the Silmarillion is written as it was Mythological material. That means the "real" Feanor isn't all that great. Even Galadriel is supposed to be less grandiose than in the LotR, because she wasn't as wise, and she probably wasn't as powerful either (until she arrived on Middle Earth, I mean).

tl;dr: I don't agree the awe the characters in Silmarillion cause on the reader is related to their feats or looks. It's their stories what makes them greater than life, the role they partake in the creation of the world as we know it. You know, just like Hercules, or King David or whatever. A "proper" depiction of Feanor relies more on how the character is written; who the director is; and who is able to take the role. Not production costs.

[Lethologica]

Superhumans you say? Like... you know... OUR superhumans that are already in TV? You seem to be misguided in your conception of Tolkien's setting. It's very very low magic setting. True, Galadriel was impressive on the movie; but she wasn't that impresive before (for once, she is a lot more wiser than her young self). Elves aren't that much impressive than, say... Asgardians from Marvel. I bet Loki could kick Feanor's ass anytime

Of course when we talk about Valinor and the Eldar we talk about races that are closer to Hercules and Theseus from the myths, but really, Tolkien's most difficult aspect to replicate is the artistic design; not their characters abilities/feats/mannerisms. Sure, "regular" humans are less of a hassle; but as long as they make a good work on architecture and direction in general; character interpretation should be relatively easier. I don't agree Feanor is harder to interpret than Captain America or Superman.

Also, keep in mind that the Silmarillion is written as it was Mythological material. That means the "real" Feanor isn't all that great. Even Galadriel is supposed to be less grandiose than in the LotR, because she wasn't as wise, and she probably wasn't as powerful either (until she arrived on Middle Earth, I mean).

tl;dr: I don't agree the awe the characters in Silmarillion cause on the reader is related to their feats or looks. It's their stories what makes them greater than life, the role they partake in the creation of the world as we know it. You know, just like Hercules, or King David or whatever. A "proper" depiction of Feanor relies more on how the character is written; who the director is; and who is able to take the role. Not production costs.

The issue isn't that the superhumans are especially powerful or whatever you seem to think my objection is. Whether Loki can kick Feanor's ass is irrelevant. The issue is that superhumans are the baseline person, paradise is the baseline setting, and mythology is the baseline narrative. The gap to bridge is very large, and TV is not well-suited for it.

Asgard was de-mythologized by the comics. The MCU had to live up to that, which is not necessarily an easy task, but it's a very different task. And the fact that the better part of Asgard-related movies (up until Ragnarok, anyway) take place on Earth with human characters makes things easier--having humans to compare/contrast against emphasizes both the superhuman and humanized aspects of the Asgardians (this also applies to Superman).

I wouldn't say that Hercules, Theseus, and King David have particularly lent themselves to 'proper' live-action depictions, but at least they all have stories mostly taking place among humans in real-world settings.