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

[Richard Penna 3,684]

If they're adapting different eras/timeframes/cultures, I don't see a problem. PJ doesn't have a monopoly on Middle Earth.

[Romão 2,274]

I really wish they hadn't turned Tolkien into a franchise. It's demeaning 

[KK 3,307]

Nothing is sacred anymore.

[Chen G. 3,949]

3 hours ago, Richard Penna said:

PJ doesn't have a monopoly on Middle Earth.

 

Not as director, but the fact of the matter is even the Amazon show, which is legally prohibited from using Jackson's work, is nevertheless doing its darndest to pass for Peter Jackson's Middle Earth. You can bet any future films by Warners - regardless the degree of Jackson's involvement - would be of-a-piece with his films.

[Nick1Ø66 4,711]

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

 

Not as director, but the fact of the matter is even the Amazon show, which is legally prohibited from using Jackson's work, is nevertheless doing its darndest to pass for Peter Jackson's Middle Earth. You can bet any future films by Warners - regardless the degree of Jackson's involvement - would be of-a-piece with his films.

 

Agree that this is an inevitability. But I don't know...I wouldn't mind seeing a completely fresh production design for Middle-Earth. As much as I love Jackson’s films, it’s not the only vision of Middle-Earth, and there is a lot of inspiration to draw from beyond Lee & Howe. But as far as Hollywood is concerned, Middle-Earth has one look, it’s Jackson’s, and now everything has to approximate that. It's what audiences expect.

 

That said, I'll concede that as long as they're mining stories from the Appendices, we're going to get stuff like that's trying to look like the movies, whether it's from WB or Amazon. At least WB will presumably be creating an authentic continuity with Jackson's films, whereas Amazon is just faking it.

 

In any event, I doubt we'll get a new vision of Middle-Earth until Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit are inevitably remade (though not anytime soon).

 

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

I wouldn't mind a completely new vision, either! So many great works of literature have been adapted and re-adapted many times in many different ways (Dickens comes to mind), and I do enjoy, for example, Ralph Bakshi's film with its very distinct visuals and style. I don't think, however, that we'll see such a re-adaptation in the forseeable future, and honestly the party to "blame" is not Warners, it is Amazon:  The fact that a separate company, making an adaptation that is legally required to be distinct, had nevertheless opted for this enormous pastiche (to a lesser extent this is true of the fantasy elements in the Fox biopic of Tolkien's), does more to perpetuate Jackson's interpertation than twenty Warner Brothers movies ever could.

 

That said, I like Jackson's interpertation as its own cinematic entity to the extent that I'm willing, at least conceptually, to see it have a life of its own. But, in that case, Warners to me have the great advantage of being able to present a bona-fide Jackson prequel, not a show that's just dressed-up in Jackson drag. In that regard, the show is neither fish nor fowl: not connected to the films strongly enough to satiate those looking for a proper prequel, but not different enough to satisfy those looking for a fresh new take on the story. At least with Warners we'll be resolutely on one side of this equilibrium.

[mstrox 6,651]

I hope WB does a Batman crossover

 

Like Rings of Power, it’s hard for me to have any expectations at all here, positive or negative.  I love The Hobbit book but dislike the movies.  I love the Lord of the Rings movies, but have zero interest in ever reading those book(s) again.  I’d rather they let somebody who is not Peter Jackson tackle it.  
 

I’m with whoever said above that this could mean more interest in releasing Doug’s book or more Hobbit music, which is a good thing.

[Jurassic Shark 12,056]

24 minutes ago, mstrox said:

 I love The Hobbit book but dislike the movies.  I love the Lord of the Rings movies, but have zero interest in ever reading those book(s) again.

 

You're a complex being, mstrox.

 

25 minutes ago, mstrox said:

have zero interest in ever reading those book(s) again.  I’d rather they let somebody who is not Peter Jackson tackle it.  

 

Somebody who is not Tolkien should write the books again. 

[GerateWohl 4,357]

On 27/02/2023 at 6:33 PM, Chen G. said:

I wouldn't mind a completely new vision, either! So many great works of literature have been adapted and re-adapted many times in many different ways (Dickens comes to mind)

Say it! You want a Muppet version of Lord of the Rings.

[Jurassic Shark 12,056]

1 minute ago, GerateWohl said:

Say it! You want a Muppet version of Lord of the Rings.

 

Yes!

 

We already got it for The Hobbit...

[Nick1Ø66 4,711]

On 27/2/2023 at 4:16 AM, Richard Penna said:

If they're adapting different eras/timeframes/cultures, I don't see a problem. PJ doesn't have a monopoly on Middle Earth.

 

 

 

[Monoverantus 363]

15 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

 

 

Someone should send this to Peter. Will settle a lot of arguments

[TolkienSS 407]

On 27/02/2023 at 12:16 PM, Richard Penna said:

PJ doesn't have a monopoly on Middle Earth.

 

... and thus the whining about why the rebooted movies aren't as loved as the originals because they're supposedly totally different despite relying on nostalgia and references to those precise movies, begins.

[Nick1Ø66 4,711]

Warner Hopes to turn Lord of the Rings into a franchise like Star Wars

 

The Frodo franchise!

[Faleel 5,346]

@Nick1Ø66 nice avatar! 👍

[Nick1Ø66 4,711]

1 hour ago, A Farewell to Kings said:

@Nick1Ø66 nice avatar! 👍

Be cool or be cast out!

[Chen G. 3,949]

9 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

The Frodo franchise!

 

There's an excellent book by that name, as it happens!

[Nick1Ø66 4,711]

6 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

There's an excellent book by that name, as it happens!

 

It's OK.  More a film about movie marketing than anything, and I was hoping for something a little more in-depth on the production itself.

 

I'm still waiting on a comprehensive "making of" book on Lord of the Rings. I'd prefer something truly behind the scenes, warts and all, but this point I'd settle for a Rinzler-style glossy whitewash.

[toothless 963]

20 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Warner Hopes to turn Lord of the Rings into a franchise like Star Wars

 

The Frodo franchise!

Then we need Shore to come back for the next three movies! 

[Nick1Ø66 4,711]

On 2/3/2023 at 2:53 PM, toothless said:

Then we need Shore to come back for the next three movies! 

 I fear that will be a Shore never reached.

[Chen G. 3,949]

If Stephen Gallagher is composing The War of the Rohirrim all by his lonesome, then yeah maybe that’s indication of where Shore stands with future forays into this series. But we shall see.

[enderdrag64 624]

On 02/03/2023 at 11:39 AM, Nick1Ø66 said:

I'm still waiting on a comprehensive "making of" book on Lord of the Rings. I'd prefer something truly behind the scenes, warts and all, but this point I'd settle for a Rinzler-style glossy whitewash.

What do you mean by this? I was under the impression Rinzler's books are very comprehensive and accurate, and that the reason his Force Awakens book was cancelled was expressly because it *wasn't* "glossy whitewash" and Disney thought it put them in a bad light.

 

Are there any books of his that are just marketing fluff?

[Nick1Ø66 4,711]

16 minutes ago, enderdrag64 said:

What do you mean by this? I was under the impression Rinzler's books are very comprehensive and accurate, and that the reason his Force Awakens book was cancelled was expressly because it *wasn't* "glossy whitewash" and Disney thought it put them in a bad light.

 

Are there any books of his that are just marketing fluff?

 

I don't mean to disparage Rinzler (RIP) or his excellent books. I've read all of his "making of" Star Wars and Indiana Jones books. They are indeed quite comprehensive (though not so much with the latter Indiana Jones movies). But at the end of the day they're Lucasfilm authorised books, and every word is only in there b/c Lucasfilm allowed it.  If those books were the only making of Star Wars books you read, you'd be missing a big part of the picture. Because, well, Lucas lies.

[Chen G. 3,949]

There are some choices of words in the Rinzler books that are anachronisms added into the manuscript in the proofing by Lucas. There’s a bit that makes it seem like Lucas thought of Midichlorians in 1977, but Rinzler later clarified Lucas ADDED it to the book.

 

personally, I think Brian Sibley’s biography of Jackson is one of the absolutely finest making of books I’ve ever read. It’s a great read and presents long stretches that quote Jackson, Walsh et al, and not so many years after the fact; and yet it’s not hagiographical. Really puts you in the room with New Line and Miramax: a superb read!

I was just rereading the Lord of the Rings segments of it. It struck me how many choices made in the 1990s, ostensibly to serve the trilogy, have ended-up serving The Hobbit, serving The War of the Rohirrim, serving (by proxy) The Rings of Power and inevitably serving these future films.

[Jurassic Shark 12,056]

8 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

yet it’s not hagiographical.

 

I'm glad it admits everything went downhill from FotR.

[Nick1Ø66 4,711]

3 hours ago, Chen G. said:

There are some choices of words in the Rinzler books that are anachronisms added into the manuscript in the proofing by Lucas. There’s a bit that makes it seem like Lucas thought of Midichlorians in 1977, but Rinzler later clarified Lucas ADDED it to the book.

 

personally, I think Brian Sibley’s biography of Jackson is one of the absolutely finest making of books I’ve ever read. It’s a great read and presents long stretches that quote Jackson, Walsh et al, and not so many years after the fact; and yet it’s not hagiographical. Really puts you in the room with New Line and Miramax: a superb read!

I was just rereading the Lord of the Rings segments of it. It struck me how many choices made in the 1990s, ostensibly to serve the trilogy, have ended-up serving The Hobbit, serving The War of the Rohirrim, serving (by proxy) The Rings of Power and inevitably serving these future films.

 

Yeah, I've read Sibley's book. And Nathan's book, they're both quite good. Both give some good insight into the early days how the project came together, the negotiations, key players (including some interesting Weinstein stuff) etc, but neither is a comprehensive "making of" the trilogy. I'm talking about something that goes into detail on every aspect of the production. Again, something as thorough and in-depth as Rinzlers book's.

[Nick1Ø66 4,711]

19 hours ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

I'm glad it admits everything went downhill from FotR.

 
Strictly speaking, I guess I agree:

 

FOTR: 10

TTT: 9.5

ROTK: 9.0

 

Fellowship of the Ring is more or less first among equals.

[Chen G. 3,949]

I think that’s wrong. It seems to me it’s just the novelty speaking, plus the more fairytale-like trappings of the “group on a quest” story over the more war-story the later entries turn into.

[mstrox 6,651]

6 hours ago, Chen G. said:

plus the more fairytale-like trappings of the “group on a quest” story over the more war-story the later entries turn into.

Is that not a valid reason to prefer a movie over others?

[Jurassic Shark 12,056]

On 27/02/2023 at 4:01 PM, Romão said:

I really wish they hadn't turned Tolkien into a franchise. It's demeaning 

 

I wish Tolkien didn't write any sequel to The Hobbit. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,711]

9 hours ago, Chen G. said:

I think that’s wrong. It seems to me it’s just the novelty speaking, plus the more fairytale-like trappings of the “group on a quest” story over the more war-story the later entries turn into.

 

"Wrong"?

[Chen G. 3,949]

2 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

"Wrong"?

Yeah; maybe that was the wrong wording. All I can say is that when I watched The Fellowship of the Ring, I was obviously taken with it enough to watch (and read!) the rest; but I just experienced it as an action-adventure yarn. An action-adventure film with pathos, that managed to sneak up on me with Sam and Frodo’s reunion on the boat at the end. But still an action-adventure film.

 

Only in The Return of the King (and not necessarily on the first viewing of The Return of the King!) did it dawn on me, as it did on executive producer Michael Lynne, “my god, it’s actually a drama!” 
 

From that second viewing and through to today, from the moment Merry and Pippin are separated, I get a lump in my throat, and it doesn’t dissolve until after the movie is over a good 3.5 hours later. Fellowship and The Two Towers don’t come close to doing that to me, I’m afraid.

 

5 hours ago, mstrox said:

Is that not a valid reason to prefer a movie over others?

I personally think it’s quaint.

 

I don’t like quaint.

[Nick1Ø66 4,711]

20 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Yeah; maybe that was the wrong wording. All I can say is that when I watched The Fellowship of the Ring, I was obviously taken with it enough to watch (and read!) the rest; but I just experienced it as an action-adventure yarn. An action-adventure film with pathos, that managed to sneak up on me with Sam and Frodo’s reunion on the boat at the end. But still an action-adventure film.

 

Only in The Return of the King (and not necessarily on the first viewing of The Return of the King!) did it dawn on me, as it did on executive producer Michael Lynne, “my god, it’s actually a drama!” 
 

From that second viewing and through to today, from the moment Merry and Pippin are separated, I get a lump in my throat, and it doesn’t dissolve until after the movie is over a good 3.5 hours later. Fellowship and The Two Towers don’t come close to doing that to me, I’m afraid.

 

Interesting.  And I thought you'd just say "I consider it all one movie" and be done with it!

[Chen G. 3,949]

I do consider it one film. But I think that, in the context of being one long film, the third act has a huge advantage for being the payoff.

[TolkienSS 407]

I don't understand: why would people think Lord of the Rings was anything else but a drama?

Because it has pointy ears?

[Nick1Ø66 4,711]

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

I do consider it one film. But I think that, in the context of being one long film, the third act has a huge advantage for being the payoff.

 

I think The Hobbit has the better argument for being one film. 

 

Each Lord of the Rings film has its own structure, acts, climax, etc. and they play as three individual, though connected, pieces. I also think it's obvious that Jackson's, let's say, restraint, was less evident by the time he got to editing and post on ROTK.

 

Let's put it this way, if you edited the three LOTR films into one, long mega film I think you'd still be able to recognize it as three distinct pieces. Whereas with The Hobbit, I think it could play as one seamless whole.  

 

In any event, the reality is that at the end of the day LOTR is three films, and were assembled & edited as such. It wasn't the same as say, Che' or Red Cliff, where you basically have a single film cut in half and released in two parts. 

 

And I know Jackson would say differently, just as he thinks starting with The Hobbit is the best way to watch the six-film "saga". I disagree with him on this as well (in almost all cases, watching films in release order is the right answer).

 

Like Jackson, I was introduced to Lord of the Rings by Bakshi, and FOTR remains my favourite film among the three. I do agree that Return of the King has an amazing payoff, and while it's not the best film in the trilogy, I think there's an argument that it has the biggest emotional impact. "You bow for no one" gets me choked up every time, and is among my favourite scenes in the trilogy, along with the return to the Shire. But I also think, while FOTR and TTT, in their extended editions, are pretty much perfect films, ROTK has some (albeit minor) flaws that cause it to dance just on the outside of perfection.

[Jay 37,346]

I think each of the LOTR EEs has one scene too many; One scene that just doesn't pull off what it's trying to proprely, and shouldn't have been restored.  And I'd still love to see a massive deleted scene reel of everything still left that wasn't put back in

[Nick1Ø66 4,711]

4 hours ago, Jay said:

I think each of the LOTR EEs has one scene too many; One scene that just doesn't pull off what it's trying to proprely, and shouldn't have been restored.  And I'd still love to see a massive deleted scene reel of everything still left that wasn't put back in

 

I can't really think of anything I'd cut from the FOTR and TTT EE's. 

 

And while I think the ROTK EE is still superior to the TE, there is stuff in there that doesn't quite work (in either version). But in the EE specifically, I'm thinking of the second "this army" gag with the army of the dead coming out of nowhere. It worked the first time when they board the pirate ship, but then falls flat the second time at Pelennor. And the EE almost messes the gag up entirely the first time by extending the scene past Aragon's "what say you" to include the ridiculous mountain of falling skulls. Once the undead agree to fight for him, the punchline to the reveal is undermined. To me everything past "what say you" was unnecessary and ruins the drama of the scene.

 

I'm also not a fan of Sam abandoning Frodo, tying Arwen's fate to that of the Ring, Arwen "surprising" Aragorn at his coronation, and Gandalf murdering Denethor. The Legalos heroics get a bit out of hand as well in ROTK, which I chalk up as Jackson starting to display some of the excess that sadly plagued The Hobbit. 

 

These are admittedly small complaints about what is otherwise a brilliant film, but to me they keep ROTK from being the sheer perfection that is the first two. Though again, the emotional payoff in this one is strong enough to overlook the flaws.

[Jay 37,346]

I agree with everything in your post!!

[Holko 9,519]

Sam abandoning Frodo is probably my biggest gripe - maybe it could've worked if he just sits down crying then we see him next when entering the Shelob fight, but that stupid bit of him actually going back down the stairs, falling down, seeing the crumbs and realising Gollum lied which he knew all along...

 

Adaptationwise I'm also really not a fan of what they did with Denethor, turning him from a strong leader who does everything to stand his ground, more than he could handle in fact since ultimately the Palantír unfortunately breaks him, into a madman asshole.

[Monoverantus 363]

4 hours ago, Jay said:

I think each of the LOTR EEs has one scene too many; One scene that just doesn't pull off what it's trying to proprely, and shouldn't have been restored.

I can get behind this, and the opposite as well. I think the Theatrical cuts all have one scene too few; FOTR should've included the Gift-giving scene, TTT Faramir and Boromir's backstory, and ROTK Saruman's death.

[TolkienSS 407]

I don't understand the complaint about Arwen showing up at the coronation. You have to tie up that story, and there is absolutely no way to interrupt the poetic flow between the ring destruction and Aragorn's coronation with something like the field of Cormallen.

And for that matter, I never understood the criticism towards Arwen's life force being tied to the Ring. On the contrary, I find that a very Tolkienian thing. The Silmarillion is full of such concepts, of giving or losing life force, or dying of grief. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,711]

15 hours ago, TolkienSS said:

I don't understand the complaint about Arwen showing up at the coronation. You have to tie up that story, and there is absolutely no way to interrupt the poetic flow between the ring destruction and Aragorn's coronation with something like the field of Cormallen.

 

I don't like it b/c the surprised look on Aragorn's face doesn't make sense. Or at least, it shouldn't. Especially after they made such a big deal of tying Arwen's fate to the Ring, this scene just seemed kind of off to me. What, sometime between the ring getting destroyed and becoming King to be Aragorn didn't ask someone "Hey, whatever happened to that elf girl I liked? Is she still around?" What, Elrond lied? This isn't a rom-com.

 

15 hours ago, TolkienSS said:

And for that matter, I never understood the criticism towards Arwen's life force being tied to the Ring. On the contrary, I find that a very Tolkienian thing. The Silmarillion is full of such concepts, of giving or losing life force, or dying of grief. 

 

It is a "Tolkienian thing" (though not what Tolkien wrote).  What I don't like is the way it's used. Jackson uses it to make the stakes "personal" for Aragorn, and I think it's both unearned and unnecessary. 

 

As if the fate of Middle-Earth hanging in the balance wasn't enough, Aragorn (and the audience) must be given additional motivation to care about the ring getting destroyed. Completely unnecessary, especially when the beat in the film at this point is Aragorn finally coming to terms with who he is ("become who you were born to be") and what he's supposed to do.

 

That said, these things are easy for me to overlook, and I do. Especially the given how beautiful the scene between Arwen & Elrond is played out (“No ship can bear me hence”) I think it’s Liv’s best moment in the films. And it allows us to really see those two as father & daugther.

 

 

[Jay 37,346]

2 hours ago, Monoverantus said:

I can get behind this, and the opposite as well. I think the Theatrical cuts all have one scene too few; FOTR should've included the Gift-giving scene, TTT Faramir and Boromir's backstory, and ROTK Saruman's death.

 

Damn, I agree with that too! 

[TolkienSS 407]

15 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

I don't like it b/c the surprised look on Aragorn's face doesn't make sense. Or at least, it shouldn't. Especially after they made such a big deal of tying Arwen's fate to the Ring, this scene just seemed kind of off to me. What, sometime between the ring getting destroyed and becoming King to be Aragorn didn't ask someone "Hey, whatever happened to that elf girl I liked? Is she still around?" What, Elrond lied? This isn't a rom-com.

 

You forget that in the films, the last we see of Aragorn and Arwen before that, is Aragorn telling Arwen that their relationship cannot be, and the scene of her admitting to Elrond that he as her father also has her love, and them deciding for her to leave for the Grey Havens.

So, the surprised look on Aragorn's face is in the context of him realising Arwen came for him despite him having told her off. And the shy and hesitant look on her face is in the context of "I know you told me to let it go, but here I am."

And the scene in Dunharrow is in the context of a broken Elrond asking the man who loves his daughter as much as he does, to save her, despite him deciding (and Elrond wanting him) not to he with her.

 

If one must criticize a piece of this story, it's the scene with Aragorn and the Palantir, and the vision of the Evenstar bursting. Because it's too close to implying Aragorn is hoping to see Arwen again.

 

[Stark 312]

I think the only thing I don’t like is Sam turning back on the stairs - everything else I’m 100% on board with.

[Chen G. 3,949]

3 hours ago, TolkienSS said:

 

You forget that in the films, the last we see of Aragorn and Arwen before that, is Aragorn telling Arwen that their relationship cannot be, and the scene of her admitting to Elrond that he as her father also has her love, and them deciding for her to leave for the Grey Havens.

 

You’re both also forgetting that in Aragorn’s vision in the Palantir, he seems to be under the impression that Arwen had died.

 

I want to react to Nick’s post later when I’m in front of a keyboard.

[Nick1Ø66 4,711]

I haven't forgotten any of those things. I've seen the film once or twice.  

 

Though I'm not sure that I agree that Aragorn "told Arwen off", nor that the man who called Sauron "the deceiver" believes Arwen is dead based on his vision on the Palantir.

 

In any event, I just don't think any of that address the issue I have with the entire concept of tying Arwen's fate to that of the Ring...i.e. that it's designed to "personalize" the stakes for both Aragorn & the audience. As if avoiding the world being "plunged into a second darkness" isn't reason enough for Aragorn to reclaim his crown and defeat Sauron. 

 

It's not a question of right or wrong, nor about the necessities in adaptation but whether this particular change works for you. If you're happy with it, great. Most of the changes Jackson did I agree with, this one feels a little Hollywood to me.

[Faleel 5,346]

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

You’re both also forgetting that in Aragorn’s vision in the Palantir, he seems to be under the impression that Arwen had died.

 

 

I never got that impression at all!

[Jurassic Shark 12,056]

Have you guys considered watching any other movies?