New Lord Of The Rings Film: The Hunt For Gollum (Andy Serkis stars & directs)

[The Great Gonzales 5,517]

55 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Did Weta or Lee-Howe or someone else from the Jackson gang work on that game?

McKellan and Lee recorded dialogue for it.

[Chen G. 4,111]

2 minutes ago, Faleel said:

McKellan and Lee recorded dialogue for it.

 

Huh. Will wonders never cease? Also, Kiran Shah in this: 

 

 

 

And I got a good laugh at Jackson in the Darrylgorn spoof.

[A. A. Ron 1,752]

What a dumb idea for a movie.

  

6 hours ago, Chen G. said:

To me all this talk of it being fan-fiction or not are secondary to the core question: Do I think this story is worthwhile to tell? I think it is.

 

Really? I'm kind of baffled that you feel this way Mr. "Star Wars was complete and needed no further follow ups or spin offs after Return of the Jedi."

 

3 hours ago, filmmusic said:

Aren't you tired of Lord of the Rings scores?

 

Uhh... No.

 

3 hours ago, filmmusic said:

I haven't even listened to the complete recordings of the initial trilogy yet.. 

 

That may explain why you don't want more!

[The Great Gonzales 5,517]

5 minutes ago, A. A. Ron said:

What a dumb idea for a movie.

  

 

Really? I'm kind of baffled that you feel this way Mr. "Star Wars was complete and needed no further follow ups or spin offs after Return of the Jedi."

You don't wanna see Smeagol sucking eggs?

[A. A. Ron 1,752]

Maybe if they framed it as a Bear Grylls style survival documentary hosted by Gollum.

[Edmilson 7,735]

18 minutes ago, A. A. Ron said:

What a dumb idea for a movie.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Faleel said:

You don't wanna see Smeagol sucking eggs?

I'd like to understand Hollywood's obsession with making prequels centered on Gollum. First the game, now this.

 

There's so much more interesting stories out there in the Middle Earth than this! Why not a movie about the order of the wizards starring a young Gandalf studying magic with Saruman? Or one about Aragorn's life as a Ranger?

 

But I guess it's easier to convince Andy Serkis to go back to this franchise than Viggo Mortensen.

[Monoverantus 389]

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

Huh. Will wonders never cease?

Don't forget Sala Baker generously providing his effortless charisma to the Portsmouth Guildhall LOTR Concert.

[The Great Gonzales 5,517]

9 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

 Or one about Aragorn's life as a Ranger?

 

But I guess it's easier to convince Andy Serkis to go back to this franchise than Viggo Mortensen.

In the book Gandalf and Aragorn (and Sauron) are the ones hunting Gollum...

[Nick1Ø66 4,993]

On 9/5/2024 at 4:03 PM, Faleel said:

In the book Gandalf and Aragorn (and Sauron) are the ones hunting Gollum...

You’ve pretty much just described, in one sentence, the entirety of what we know from the book about the "hunt for Gollum". This presumably is the “story” they’re “adapting”. Literally, that's it. That's the story. The rest they're going to have to make up.

 

I'm exaggerating a bit, of course, there’s a little more there. But not much. 
 

In any event, despite the title, the movie’s not going to be about Gollum, it will almost certainly be more about Aragorn. 

[Schilkeman 1,040]

Anyone remember the Michael Richards show? I'm always reminded of it when stuff like this comes up. Gollum was a great character. We don't need more of him than we got, although I agree with the suspicion that this might actually be more Aragorn: Ranger of the Fallen Kingdom than a Gollum thing, my point is the same either way.

 

Is there some kind of fan-made "we forgot the taste of bread" montage where Peter Jackson slowly becomes George Lucas over the span of a hundred years? I'd watch that. The making of The Hobbit is where the eyes change.

[Monoverantus 389]

15 hours ago, Monoverantus said:

Sigh... just constant remakes these days.

 

Wow, blocked within a day of the news release.

[The Great Gonzales 5,517]

4 hours ago, Monoverantus said:

Wow, blocked within a day of the news release.

Kinda shitty

6 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

You’ve just described in one sentence, more or less, the entirety of what we know about “The Hunt for Gollum”. This is the “story” they’re “adapting”.

 

I'm exaggerating a bit, of course. We know a little more. But not much. 
 

 

Woodelves hold him for a short time, they can't get any info from him, he escapes.

 

 

There, now that's everything

[Tydirium 1,169]

On 9/5/2024 at 10:50 AM, Monoverantus said:

Sigh... just constant remakes these days.

 

 

Blocked on copyright grounds? What video was this?

On 9/5/2024 at 10:50 AM, Monoverantus said:

Sigh... just constant remakes these days.

 

 

Blocked on copyright grounds? What video was this?

On 9/5/2024 at 10:50 AM, Monoverantus said:

Sigh... just constant remakes these days.

 

 

Blocked on copyright grounds? What video was this?

On 9/5/2024 at 10:50 AM, Monoverantus said:

Sigh... just constant remakes these days.

 

 

Blocked on copyright grounds? What video was this?

[Nick1Ø66 4,993]

You can say that again.

 

[Jay 37,679]

Its unblocked now anyway

[Incanus 5,743]

Well I am not exactly ecstatic about this piece of news. The only positive thing about this film would be a new Howard Shore score.

 

[Nick1Ø66 4,993]

That seems to be the general consensus among Tolkien fans that I've seen.

[Monoverantus 389]

5 hours ago, Tydirium said:

Blocked on copyright grounds? What video was this?

A quite popular Hunt for Gollum fan film that was made 15 years ago. Now that it's unblocked, check it out.

[bored 323]

I have higher hopes than any Amazon season at least. Andy Serkis made on-screen Gollum, seems to have a decent passion for the property considering his audiobook readings, and having Peter Jackson on increases the chances of a new Howard Shore LOTR score. In terms of how dismal LOTR is now, I'll take it at this point. 

[Edmilson 7,735]

But will Serkis even consider Shore for the work? What if he "wants to put his own spin" on the material and etc? 

 

He worked with Marco Beltrami on the second Venom movie. How a Beltrami LOTR score would be? If it's closer to Gods of Egypt than it could be good.

[bored 323]

3 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

He worked with Marco Beltrami on the second Venom movie. How a Beltrami LOTR score would be?

 

I've never considered such a horrifying possibility...

[Chen G. 4,111]

8 hours ago, bored said:

I have higher hopes than any Amazon season at least. Andy Serkis made on-screen Gollum, seems to have a decent passion for the property considering his audiobook readings, and having Peter Jackson on increases the chances of a new Howard Shore LOTR score. In terms of how dismal LOTR is now, I'll take it at this point. 

 

The main leg up it has on the Amazon project is it will have a more clear audiovisual identity. The Amazon show is what I call a pretendquel: a separate adaptation also trying to pretend its a prequel of another adaptation. A little bit like that terrible Oz film that Raimi made, that tried to make you think it was a prequel to the 1939 film.

 

So, where the Amazon project has this uncanny valley "neither fish nor fowl" quality, this will land hard on the "prequel to Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings" side, which is certainly better than lingering in limbo between the two sides as does the Amazon project.

 

Amazon may well have played in Jackson and co's hand here a little, insofar as when Jackson assembles the team for this film in New Zealand, many of them will have had worked on Season One and so remained in the swing of Middle Earth, so to speak. At the same time, it might place some limitations on the casting process: I can only assume they'll avoid Amazon cast members, which would sadly mean no Peter Mullan or Ciaran Hinds in the Jackson films.

[Richard Penna 3,823]

5 hours ago, Edmilson said:

But will Serkis even consider Shore for the work? What if he "wants to put his own spin" on the material and etc? 

 

He worked with Marco Beltrami on the second Venom movie. How a Beltrami LOTR score would be? If it's closer to Gods of Egypt than it could be good.

 

What I heard of Gods of Egypt was dull, dull, dull, probably because te film's a POS.

 

I'd give Beltrami a fair hearing just like any other composer but I don't think his style is right for LotR, and I think he falls into the category of people who respects Shore's work too much to not at least ask him.

[Chen G. 4,111]

The thing about Shore is, his music for Aragorn (in his Strider persona) is the simplest little motive imaginable: literally a rising perfect fourth, and then another step up; which is greater for a composer because its very malleable. But, then, how do you work that idea out so that at the end, with Strider sitting in the Prancing Pony, it culminates with just that rising fourth?

[bored 323]

5 hours ago, Chen G. said:

But, then, how do you work that idea out so that at the end, with Strider sitting in the Prancing Pony, it culminates with just that rising fourth?

He might do a similar thing he did with the Rohan theme in that case. Start with a rising minor third, and culminate with a rising fourth. Or maybe it'll just start out as the good motif, and evolve into the Strider one. 

 

Ultimately, I'd especially love to hear even more of the Gollum motives, and maybe even Gandalf's leitmotif from The Hobbit. I remember someone created an excellent fan-made track of what a Howard Shore score for this film could partially entail, with a younger Strider meeting up with Gandalf:

 

[Chen G. 4,111]

42 minutes ago, bored said:

Ultimately, I'd especially love to hear even more of the Gollum motives, and maybe even Gandalf's leitmotif from The Hobbit.

 

Yeah.

 

But then, what is there new in this film? This goes visually as well as musically. It seems to me the story entails the Dead Marshes, outskirts of Mordor, probably Rivendell, the Woodland Realm and Gondor.

 

I guess Shore's sprechgesang and aleatorics for the Marshes will be fun to reprise, but isn't there anything new?

[The Great Gonzales 5,517]

Dunedain Motif?

 

Stoor theme?

 

Gollum's Grandma Motif

[Chen G. 4,111]

Ah, and we're back to the Wonderful Land of Motive Names! 

[Nick1Ø66 4,993]

Calling it now: There's zero chance Tom Bombadil is not in this movie.

[Chen G. 4,111]

You really think so? Because he's also in the Amazon show. Actually, that'd really help New Line delineate their films from that show, which is something they want.

[Nick1Ø66 4,993]

Yes, I think so. Because they're going to have to make up the bulk of the story for the film, and Bombadil is an easy, existing character to stick in there, and one that fans would love to see. And knowing Jackson's impish sense of humour, I don't think he'll be able to resist. Bombabil is the type of outrageous character that would allow Jackson to indulge his more...outrageous impulses. 

 

And while I know New Line very much wants to differentiate their fan fiction from Amazon's fan fiction (and with good reason), I don't think having Bombadil in both productions will cause audiences to confuse the two more than they already will. Indeed, given that Jackson's Bombadil would certainly be markedly different from whatever Amazon comes up with, it actually may have the opposite effect, in that the contrast will draw attention to the fact that they are separate entities. 

 

Hmmmm. Now that I think about it, Farmer Maggot will probably make an appearance as well, and perhaps even Old Man Willow.  I don't think PJ will be able to resist the opportunity to put these characters, who he (understandably) couldn't fit into LOTR, in there.  

[Chen G. 4,111]

6 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

In fact, given that Jackson's Bombadil would certainly be markedly different from whatever Amazon comes up with, it actually may have the opposite effect, in that the contrast will draw attention to the fact that they are separate entities. 

 

Yeah, I agree.

 

Also, that might fly in the face of what I previously said about New Line staying away from Amazon cast members. What better way to set the two apart, then to have, say, Peter Mullan play some other role in some New Line film?

[Nick1Ø66 4,993]

Mullan is one of the better parts of the Amazon series, but I really don't think Jackson would cast anyone from that production. Not out of spite or anything like that, I just don't think he'd go there. Though I do imagine there would have to be some WETA personnel working on both projects, that seems to be unavoidable.

 

And I do think Farmer Maggot is a lock as well. It's a way to get Hobbits in there, and to show some of Maggot's heroism and interaction with Bombadl (and probably Gandalf), which is something Tolkien already alluded to. Yes, in a different context, but repurposing lines and shuffling context is something Jackson did, with success, in LOTR & TH, so I think Walsh & Boyens in particular would welcome the opportunity to get as much
"real" Tolkien in there as they can.

[Chen G. 4,111]

Okay, my time to call it: Jackson is said to be onboard for two films. The first is one that he had long wanted to make, that is concurrent with Fellowship of the Ring. What other story Jackson always said he wanted to make and that is concurrent with one of the Lord of the Rings entries?

 

The Battle of Dale.

 

I think that's a very good bet for the second film. Philippa also talked about how great it would have been to film, both in the Hobbit making-ofs AND in the recent interview with Nerd of the Rings, around which time she may or may not have already been throwing ideas around with Jackson and Walsh.

[Monoverantus 389]

The thing with adapting the hunt for Gollum is that the content we can expect varies greatly depending on where you start the story. The "Good side" starts with Gandalf getting suspicious of the Ring after Bilbo's birthday party and joining with Aragorn to search the Wilderlands, ending with Aragorn catching Gollum in the Dead Marshes and taking him to the Woodland Realm to be interrogated by Gandalf.

But Gollum's side could begin 60 years earlier with him starting his search for the Ring not long after he lost it. In that time-span, you could include Aragorn's whole youth, meeting Arwen and early adventures in Rohan and Mordor. This might not be an issue regardless, considering the likely time-compression. Plus the story already includes Gandalf talking to Denethor in Gondor and reading the account of Isildur, and Gollum's escape from the Woodland Realm. I think there's more than enough content the movie could adapt even without including people or places that have nothing to do with the story.

[Barnald 382]

I do think a 'War in the North' story is the only logical choice for the second proposed film, providing WB again want something closely tied to the existing 'Jackson' timeline. And feasibly, you could insert certain linked threads and characters into this Hunt for Gollum film, depending on how they approach it.

[Chen G. 4,111]

2 minutes ago, Barnald said:

depending on how they approach it.

 

If they really just do the "Gandalf leaves Bag End at the 23 minute mark of Fellowship, and then the film starts" approach, then it would really require to de-age pretty much the entire cast. Even Aragorn himself, who would other lend himself to a young actor, you wouldn't realistically be able to present as a younger actor in events that are mere weeks before Frodo meets him in Bree.

 

If they do a larger, life-of-Aragorn movie as Mono suggests... different story.

[Barnald 382]

I found this tweet from FellowshipofFans interesting:

 

 

Does this suggest they're not going to cover 'Young Aragorn' at all? I have to say, I'm not particularly enthused by the prospect of a film set entirely between The Hobbit and FOTR, for various reasons. I've been putting some thought into it (forgive me), and I think any such 'Hunt for Gollum' film, as potentially confusing as it may seem, would have to be pre-FOTR (actually to a lesser extent) and (especially) during. But to maximize the story potential, and use elements from the books, you'd need to be creative. At the same time, If they're going to make it consistent with Jackson's FOTR (and presumably they want to), there's particular lines and scenarios they'd have to adhere to, else the continuity police would have a field day. This hinders them to a certain degree of course, but I still think you could take some interesting bits from the books and perhaps shift them around a little.

 

Case in point - in the film, at Rivendell, when Frodo asks why Gandalf wasn't there to meet them, Gandalf merely tells Frodo that he was delayed, and that a friendship with Saruman is not lightly cast aside (cue flashback). But that's not necessarily to say it was a straight trip from Orthanc to Rivendell via Gwaihir, right? So, could they depict Gandalf battling the Nazgul on Weathertop as a climactic event for his arc? After all, in Jackson's FOTR Arwen does say she doesn't know where the other 4 wraiths are, so that's something to latch onto. I sense WB won't want Radagast in this movie, but if he was involved (and done seriously), he could be useful. For example, he could turn up here and help Gandalf (who is minus his staff in film lore, perhaps making the encounter more desperate than it should be), and, as in BOFA, give Gandalf his own staff again, making a running gag of it.

 

I'm just throwing ideas out there. Whatever one's opinion, this film is happening so they have to come up with something. I do think there are various threads from the books you could build an intriguing film around, but they'd have to be clever, and weaving it into the existing narrative of Jackson's FOTR and expecting audiences to keep up is another matter. How... bold - for lack of a better word - do the writers want to be? Perhaps more pertinently, how bold can they be?

[Nick1Ø66 4,993]

3 hours ago, Barnald said:

I found this tweet from FellowshipofFans interesting:

 

FoF? Frankly, I didn't know they were still in business. 

[The Great Gonzales 5,517]

5 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Frankly, I didn't even know they were still in business. 

And where else should they be?

 

 

[Nick1Ø66 4,993]

3 minutes ago, Faleel said:

And where else should they be?

 

 

 

[Holko 9,656]

My concern is that there's no story or character arc or satisfying culminating ending to be had here unless they make up some bullshit. Maybe the quest will be tied to Elrond's approval of Aragorn&Arwen... oooh, throw an elf suitor in there and you have your stupid forced love triangle!

[Barnald 382]

They're going to have to retcon Jackson's FOTR anyway, because after over 20 years and God knows how many viewings this announcement has made me realize one aspect makes no sense. I'm probably very slow and years late to the party with this one so apologies.

 

So, the 'Shadows of the Past' scene:

 

Quote

Gandalf: There is one other who knew Bilbo had the ring. I looked everywhere for the creature Gollum but the enemy found him first.

Amidst the endless screams and inane babble they discerned two words.

 

You know the rest. The implication is clear enough: as in the book, Gandalf eventually got to Gollum but it was too late. He discovered what Gollum revealed under duress.

 

But then fast forward to Moria, when Frodo spies Gollum:

 

Quote

Frodo: He escaped the dungeons of Barad-dur!

Gandalf: Escaped... or was set loose and now the Ring has drawn him here.

 

Why are they having this conversation? We know Gollum escaped the dungeons (or was set free). How else could Gandalf have spoken to him, or even known what he blabbered, short of having an especially bold spy in the heart of Mordor, or having shared a pint with the chief torturer?

 

Oh Peter and co, it was beginning even back then, I was just blind to it. Still, all is not lost. You can revisit FOTR and via the always-convincing magic of AI, CGI, make-up and cutaways, restore continuity and align it with The Hunt for Gollum. I recommend:

 

Quote

Frodo: He escaped the dungeons of the Woodland Elves!

Gandalf: Escaped... or was set free/freed

 

Though I'm also partial to:

 

Quote

Frodo: He escaped the dungeons of Barad-dur!

Gandalf: Of course he did you stupid bastard. How else would I have spoken to him?

 

Your choice Peter.

[Richard Penna 3,823]

I noticed the implications of that quote too, but I largely came to the conclusion that they were taking a bit of artistic licence with Gandalf's line functioning partly as the conversation with Frodo and partly as plot exposition for the audience. If the film is othewise doing its job of being entertaining and exciting, those moments don't matter, as we transition in the film straight to the Ringwraiths arriving.

 

With this new project, I'd suggest the usual caution against making up an entire theoretical plot, assuming which characters are going to be in it, and deciding the project is doomed before they've officially announced a thing. I say good luck to them. If it turns out to be a great film with another Shore score, great. If it turns out to be as bad as I think the Hobbit films are... well no one is forcing anyone to watch it. (We'll likely get a good score either way)

[Tom Guernsey 2,374]

Oh goody, another “filling in the backstory blanks” film. Ok a bit cynical but only a handful of these types of thing tell a story worth telling but I will try to remain optimistic. Even if Shore doesn’t score it, I expect it’ll end up with some decent music given the weight of expectation.

[Stark 370]

The only composer Serkis has worked with multiple times is Nitin Sawhney, and many years ago, so I don’t see any specific reason he wouldn’t go for Shore or someone with a Shore style.

[Chen G. 4,111]

2 hours ago, Tom Guernsey said:

Oh goody, another “filling in the backstory blanks” film. Ok a bit cynical but only a handful of these types of thing tell a story worth telling but I will try to remain optimistic.

 

Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of these very fashionable "entries-between-the-entries." I tend to find them demystifying and ill-concieved. I do think this has a potential to sidestep some such issues being that its one (hopefully more modest) film. In Star Wars, we reached a paradoxical situation where more happens between the "saga" entries than in them.

[Nick1Ø66 4,993]

2 hours ago, Tom Guernsey said:

Oh goody, another “filling in the backstory blanks” film. Ok a bit cynical but only a handful of these types of thing tell a story worth telling

Has there even been one?

 

19 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I tend to find them demystifying and ill-concieved.

Indeed.

[Tom Guernsey 2,374]

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

 

Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of these very fashionable "entries-between-the-entries." I tend to find them demystifying and ill-concieved. I do think this has a potential to sidestep some such issues being that its one (hopefully more modest) film. In Star Wars, we reached a paradoxical situation where more happens between the "saga" entries than in them.

Hah yeah. More filler than main courses… as you say it could be ok if it doesn’t try to go on forever explaining every minor insignificant detail and has a reason for being. 
 

57 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Has there even been one?

Erm….

[Chen G. 4,111]

1 hour ago, Tom Guernsey said:

Hah yeah. More filler than main courses… as you say it could be ok if it doesn’t try to go on forever explaining every minor insignificant detail and has a reason for being. 

 

Yes. For this film I think it would also be imperative to resist the urge to visit all the places from The Lord of the Rings like Rohan, Gondor, Lorien and so forth and instead have it take place predominantly in the wilderness.

 

Much of the effect of Lord of the Rings is flattened if, between this and The Hobbit, we've already been to virtually all the locales in The Lord of the Rings before it even starts.