New ‘Lord of the Rings’ Movies in the Works at Warners, New Line

[Chen G. 3,944]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/lord-of-the-rings-new-movies-in-the-works-1235332695/

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

12 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/lord-of-the-rings-new-movies-in-the-works-1235332695/

 

[Faleel 5,340]

[Jurassic Shark 12,031]

Perhaps they'll get it right this time. 

[Chen G. 3,944]

I'm just glad we can get something with the actual production design of the The Lord of the Rings, not a vague approximation thereof a-la The Rings of Power.

[Monoverantus 363]

[KK 3,307]

Sigh.

 

This is how they killed Star Wars...

[Barnald 365]

If nothing else, I feel like Hobbit Complete Recordings are more likely if Warner Bros see Middle-earth as an active property.

[Mr. Who 919]

I think they should just leave it alone as a 2 film trilogies.

 

What do they have the rights to? If they can do something good which is based on Tolkien then why not, but does anyone really need new LOTR movies? The original films cannot be surpassed anyway and a MCUification of the Jackson/Tolkien series isn’t really needed.

 

IMO, if they make new live action films then Jackson should be involved and obviously Shore as well.

[Chen G. 3,944]

6 minutes ago, Mr. Who said:

What do they have the rights to?

 

There are some interesting stories in the appendices: The Kinstrife, the Angmar Wars, Battle of the Camp, the alliance of Cirion and Eorl, Balin's company, etc...

[A. A. Ron 1,740]

Remake The Hobbit!

[Chen G. 3,944]

3 minutes ago, A. A. Ron said:

Remake The Hobbit!

 

They said that's a no go.

[Jurassic Shark 12,031]

20 minutes ago, Mr. Who said:

IMO, if they make new live action films then Jackson should be involved and obviously Shore as well.

 

Perhaps they should let another team have a go at it. Jackson has proven he's lost his touch. 

[Chen G. 3,944]

11 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Jackson has proven he's lost his touch. 

 

I love the way fandom works. You make a movie I like = good. You make one movie I dislike, regardless of anything you've done prior, and away with you and don't dare coming near celluloid ever again, or so help me!

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

17 minutes ago, A. A. Ron said:

Remake The Hobbit!

 

Even though they're really the only substantive, fleshed out stories they have the rights to, I doubt they'd remake The Hobbit or LOTR, too soon (and thank God for that).  And even if they did do a remake, it would, of course, be a disaster, and I shudder to think about how they’d cast the Fellowship. 

 

 

[A. A. Ron 1,740]

22 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

I love the way fandom works. You make a movie I like = good. You make one movie I dislike, regardless of anything you've done prior, and away with you and don't dare coming near celluloid ever again, or so help me!

PJ made 3 great Middle Earth movies and 3 terrible ones. I find it much more annoying when someone in the fandom insists that no one could do as good of a job directing movies in series X as whichever director they’ve idolized. Other teams could absolutely do as good if not better of a job adapting Middle Earth. They could of course also do worse.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

48 minutes ago, A. A. Ron said:

PJ made 3 great Middle Earth movies and 3 terrible ones.

 

The Hobbit isn't terrible. If it were made first, it would probably be considered the greatest fantasy film made to date. It's not in the same league as LOTR, of course, and it suffers in many ways by comparison. But I don't think it's "terrible" a film, and I've been one of its harshest critics on here.

But speaking of comparison, if The Hobbit is made to look worse in comparison to LOTR, it's certainly improved, in my eyes at least, in comparison to Rings of Power. 

[A. A. Ron 1,740]

They're terrible as adaptations and they're just plain bad as films. A handful of good scenes is not enough to redeem several hours worth of cinematic garbage. To claim that they would be the best fantasy films ever made if it weren't for LOTR is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard a Hobbit apologist say. To take this position and then claim that you're one of the trilogy's harshest critics on any message board is laughable.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

On 23/2/2023 at 7:24 PM, A. A. Ron said:

They're terrible as adaptations and they're just plain bad as films. A handful of good scenes is not enough to redeem several hours worth of cinematic garbage. To claim that they would be the best fantasy films ever made if it weren't for LOTR is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard a Hobbit apologist say. To take this position and then claim that you're one of the trilogy's harshest critics on any message board is laughable.

 

LOL. Musta hit pretty close to the mark to get you riled up like that!

 

Well, I think @Chen G. (our resident Hobbit apologist) or anyone who reads the Tolkien Central would be surprised to hear you describe me as a "Hobbit apologist". I think I've been pretty harsh on the trilogy.

 

But that doesn't mean I can't appraise it in context. And yes, if Peter Jackson did The Hobbit first, as he intended, and released it in 2001 I believe it would have been considered one of the greatest fantasy films to date (i.e. to 2001, as I said). Whether it was the greatest would of course be a matter of opinion. But a survey of the fantasy film landscape prior to 2001 (perhaps you're not familiar with it?) will reveal that it wasn't exactly riddled with classics...though there are a few...and The Hobbit would have stood out the way LOTR did. Certainly, Jackson would have made a different Hobbit then, but even if it were substantially as it is now, it would still be considered ground-breaking.

 

Anywhoo, you seem really upset, so I'll just give you a moment. Breathe. It's going to be OK.

[Edmilson 7,393]

I want a LOTR remake in the "cinematic universe" style, with solo movies for Frodo, Gandalf, Aragorn, Gollum, etc., that would converge in an epic battle against Than... I mean, Sauron. And I want Lorne Balfe or Junkie XL to score it in the most badass way, filled with guitars, synths and EPIC CHOIR.

[mrbellamy 6,272]

3 hours ago, KK said:

Sigh.

 

This is how they killed Star Wars...

 

Somehow Sauron returned

[Chen G. 3,944]

8 hours ago, A. A. Ron said:

They're terrible as adaptations and they're just plain bad as films. A handful of good scenes is not enough to redeem several hours worth of cinematic garbage. To claim that they would be the best fantasy films ever made if it weren't for LOTR is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard a Hobbit apologist say. To take this position and then claim that you're one of the trilogy's harshest critics on any message board is laughable.

 

I would consider myself an apologist if we were talking about something truly terrible, with a terrible critical consensus. The Hobbit is not that: its just one of those films the memory of whose flaws became exaggerated in retrospect.

 

I think Nick's position that they are some of the best the fantasy genre has to offer outside The Lord of the Rings is probably correct, although personally, again not considering myself an "apologist", I'd say that's a low bar and that praise could be found for those films without comparing them to supbar movies.

 

I don't even think they're Jackson's worst films: this is a man who directed The Lovely Bones and for as lethargic as the pace of An Unexpected Journey sometimes becomes (my own personal biggest issue with the trilogy: I think the other two entries are paced just fine) it still moves faster than does Jackson's King Kong. Both, as it happens, have better pacing than Amazon's show, but I digress.

 

To me personally, my liking of the films has to do with a lot of things - I like the tableaux, I love Shore's score, I like the way it sits with The Lord of the Rings on the shelf as a six-part series, I like how some (not all) of it looks - but really, at its core, for me the story of the Dwarves registers very deeply: the whole story of a great folk reduced to beggars in the diaspora, yearning to return to their ancestal home, reminds one very much of Jewish history. So, too, does their more complex side: blaming others for their misfortunes and holding grudges, being secretive and suspicious of the outside world, etecetra.

 

That, to me, is much more meaningful than a dodgy beat in an action scene, a supbar love story, a terrible comic-relief character in Alfrid (whose in 5 minutes of the 151-minute long The Battle of the Five Armies, talk about missing the forest for the trees), etc...

 

But there's a much more meaningful point here which is that, regardless of what you think of those films, to treat it like a civil court trial against Jackson and to wave it around to say he should be kept at arm's length from cinematic realizations of Middle Earth when he was the one to instigate it all (Bakshi notwithstanding) is I think overly-harsh. Its like artistic cancel culture.

 

I mean, I don't think he'll step into the directing chair for any of these, nor do I think he should. But that's for other reasons, not because "Peter Jackson ruined my childhood!"

[Evanus 217]

If the chances of getting complete Hobbit score releases are higher because of this, it's worth it 

[Chen G. 3,944]

Also a release of whatever Shore may or may not have had cooking for The Rings of Power that wasn't used...

[Mr. Who 919]

 

[Bilbo 3,709]

Well it can’t be worse than Rings of Power anyway. Hopefully WB look at what specifically people disliked about that and make sure they avoid those obvious mistakes. 
 

There’a good stories they can tell. There’s the whole War in the North and Angmar and all that good stuff. 
 

It’ll have to be fleshed out but the only non-Tolkien version of M-e I can enjoy is Jackson’s version so hopefully it’ll align with that. 
 

 

and film the damn thing in New Zealand.

[TolkienSS 405]

Lord of the Rings isn't a "franchise", it's three books, which have been perfectly adapted.

 

Everything Warner touches these days turns into utter shit. This won't be any different.

 

Keep *everyone* from the Jackson films far FAR away from these!

[Chen G. 3,944]

3 minutes ago, Bilbo said:

There’a good stories they can tell. There’s the whole War in the North and Angmar and all that good stuff. 
 

It’ll have to be fleshed out but the only non-Tolkien version of M-e I can enjoy is Jackson’s version so hopefully it’ll align with that. 
 

 

and film the damn thing in New Zealand.

 

I think the Angmar Wars are by far the most likely subject matter, yes.

 

And yeah, you'd figure they'll go to New Zealand, just as The Rings of Power had left it. Will be an interesting time when we have two different interpertations of two different eras in Tolkien's chronology, by two different companies and two largely different sets of creatives, based in different countries.

[Stark 310]

There’s a lot of third age content in the appendices, which wouldn’t step on Amazon’s toes or on the films - I expect these movies will adapt that (like the anime Rohirrim movie will). The real questions are

- will they be any good?

- will the music be good (and will it use Shore’s themes)?

[Jurassic Shark 12,031]

I'm sure Balfe will come up with his own themes.

[Holko 9,499]

5 hours ago, TolkienSS said:

Lord of the Rings isn't a "franchise", it's three books, which have been perfectly adapted.

ahem.

 

one book.

[Jurassic Shark 12,031]

5 hours ago, TolkienSS said:

Lord of the Rings isn't a "franchise", it's three books, which have been perfectly adapted.

 

Just like The Hobbit.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

9 hours ago, Bilbo said:

There’a good stories they can tell. There’s the whole War in the North and Angmar and all that good stuff. 

 

I agree that in theory there are a number of stories in the Appendices which might make for a good film.

 

The issue is, we still have the same issue we have with Rings of Power...that no matter what, under any scenario, screenwriters are going to have to create large chunks, if not a majority, of the story from their own imagination. Entire storylines, plot beats, characters, etc are just going to have to be made up. It's a step beyond the adaptation they did for Lord of the Rings & The Hobbit. At what point does it stop being Tolkien?

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm hopeful that WB can still put out some good Middle-Earth films. Or at least better than what we're getting from Amazon (which admittedly is a low bar). But it's going to greatly depend on the creatives who are involved and how they approach the material. And even if what they come up with is very good, at best it will be very good fan fiction. It can't not be.

 

In any case, the idea of a "Middle-Earth Cinematic Universe" crushes my soul a little bit.

 

[Faleel 5,340]

35 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

The issue is, we still have the same issue we have with Rings of Power...that no matter what, under any scenario, screenwriters are going to have to create large chunks, if not a majority, of the story from their own imagination. Entire storylines, plot beats, characters, etc are just going to have to be made up. It's a step beyond the adaptation they did for Lord of the Rings & The Hobbit. At what point does it stop being Tolkien?

 

 

*Flashbacks to Lord of the Rings: The Third Age game*

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

4 hours ago, Holko said:

ahem.

 

one book.

 

Well it's all quite simple. LOTR is simultaneously one book, three books, six books, three volumes, one volume, one book with three volumes, three volumes with six books, six books in three volumes, six books in one volume, one book with six books, six books in one, one book with one title, one book with three titles, one book with six titles, three books with one title, three books with six titles, three books with three titles, three volumes with three titles, three volumes with six titles, three volumes with one title, six books with one title, six books with six titles, and a trilogy. That may or may not make the Hobbit a book with one, three, or six sequels and the Lord of the Rings one book with one prequel. Or six books each having between one and five sequels and prequels. Or three books with one to three prequels and sequels. One book to rule them all. Or not.  

 

Tolkien was a religious man, but he's taken this whole trinity thing to another level. 

[Chen G. 3,944]

3 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

In any case, the idea of a "Middle-Earth Cinematic Universe" crushes my soul a little bit.

 

Yeah, I don't like that term either. We'll have to see what they have cooking, though.

[Jurassic Shark 12,031]

They should do a crossover film with GoT.

[Stark 310]

As long as we get good music out of this I genuinely don’t mind if WB makes terrible films. I think my priorities are all wrong...

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

12 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

They should do a crossover film with GoT.

 

Sam vs. Sam! Sumo match to the death!

 

May the fattest Sam win.

[Jurassic Shark 12,031]

Sausage eating competition!

[Faleel 5,340]

34 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Yeah, I don't like that term either. We'll have to see what they have cooking, though.

Filmic Legendarium?

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

 

40 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

We'll have to see what they have cooking, though.

11 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Sausage eating competition!

[Jurassic Shark 12,031]

 

[Chen G. 3,944]

25 minutes ago, Clockwork Angel said:

Filmic Legendarium?

 

How about "film series"?

 

The Wagnerian in me likes "cycle"...

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

5 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

How about "film series"?

 

The Wagnerian in me likes "cycle"...

 

I'm pretty sure "Ring Cycle" is taken.

[Monoverantus 363]

4 hours ago, Clockwork Angel said:

*Flashbacks to Lord of the Rings: The Third Age game*

I'm honestly a lot more lenient towards breaking the canon when it comes to games (Shadow of Mordor, BfME 1 and 2, War of the Ring). Interactivity, by default, dispells the illusion that you're engaging with a 100% faithful adaptation.

[A. A. Ron 1,740]

22 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

LOL. Musta hit pretty close to the mark to get you riled up like that!

 

 

...

 

Anywhoo, you seem really upset, so I'll just give you a moment. Breathe. It's going to be OK.

 

 

[Giftheck 916]

The only film they need to make is The Adventures of Tom Bombadil. I guarantee it'll make a Bombadillion dollars at the box office.

[Jurassic Shark 12,031]

Three films, you mean!

[Chen G. 3,944]

I went through the appendices again. The stories they can reasonably tell are:

1. The Angmar Wars - the Downfall of Cardolan
2. The Kinstrife
3. The Battle of the Camp
4. The Angmar Wars - The Downfall of Arnor
5. The Downfall of Earnur
6. Oaths of Cirion and Eorl
7. The adventures of Aragorn
8. Balin's Colony