Amazon and WB discussing new LORD OF THE RINGS TV series

[SpaceChampion]

We're going to get the first season about Frodo trying to figure what's up with Fatty Bolger's mysterious behaviour, and other intrigue from Hobbiton to the Brandywine.

[Ran]

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

 

I'd be curious:  Is there anything close to a consensus, either among fans of the genre or of TV execs not opting do remake LotR, what the series is that has the most potential to be "XXXX's GoT?"  I imagine that's a conversation that's happening lots of places and not just at Amazon.  

Maybe Kingkiller Chronicles? since that's being made now?

Well, Harry Potter, again.

WoT seems to be the popular choice among fantasy fans. I am less certain of that. 

Whenever they finally decide to do a Star Wars series, that'll be big.

[Corvinus85]

Harry Potter in the times of the founders of Hogwarts - you get the HP universe in a medieval setting, thus GoT with maybe a lighter tone, but more magic (and no nudity)

[Slurktan]

11 hours ago, Risto said:

OK, here is the question. What is the point of this? What Tolkien Estate or ME Enterprises hope to gain with his?

If we exclude the perversely high sum of $200 million, what is the story here? Is it Christopher Tolkien's desire to get "more correct" adaptation of LOTR and Hobbit? I seriously have no idea what people are trying ti get from this one. 

It very well could be a rights thing for WB,  They would be pushing so that they keep their limited rights or whatever.  I'm not sure how the rights  are between them and ME Enterprises.  The Tolkien estate has nothing to do with the film rights for the Hobbit and LOTR and likely never will as JRR Tolkien sold them off. The Tolkien estate is not involved unless they are selling rights to things like the Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales. 

I honestly don't get the complaints.  You don't have to watch it.  I don't see people complaining about the latest adaption of Hamlet or Macbeth even though they have been done thousands of times.

[Mladen]

8 minutes ago, Slurktan said:

I honestly don't get the complaints.  You don't have to watch it.  I don't see people complaining about the latest adaption of Hamlet or Macbeth even though they have been done thousands of times.

Well, I think that numerous posters here have been doing quite the god job in explaining what a bizarre situation this is. The Spiderman, or in your case, Shakespeare argument is basically missing the point. It is not about the number of adaptations. It is the fact that the said adaptation became a cultural phenomenon of one generation, becoming a benchmark in both financial and critical success in Hollywood. This is not just another play or some solid movie. We are speaking about the most important cultural product of Hollywood production in 2000s. That is why comparison with Shakespeare's plays is inherently flawed. 

[Werthead]

1 hour ago, GAROVORKIN said:

The 2011 film was lousy . 

I think the 2011 movie had potential, but the ending was completely awful and the film bogged down in the second half. I do think Jason Momoa was outstanding as Conan though. I wouldn't mind seeing him back but his role in the DC movies probably precludes that. Plus you might want a younger actor who can play Conan as a callow youth, depending on your approach. If money was no object I'd even have Arnie as Old Conan narrating the story of his youth in framing sequences. 

 

Quote

 

I'd be curious:  Is there anything close to a consensus, either among fans of the genre or of TV execs not opting do remake LotR, what the series is that has the most potential to be "XXXX's GoT?"  I imagine that's a conversation that's happening lots of places and not just at Amazon.  

Maybe Kingkiller Chronicles? since that's being made now?

 

If you mean simply "big epic fantasy story with characters that resonate and would suit a serialised TV format," then Wheel of Time simply for the fact it could drive a 7+ season show (2 books per season, a lot of extraneous storylines jettisoned). A lot of other fantasy series are either too short, too long, too obscure or too sprawling and incoherent. Malazan, for example, is simply never going to happen as an adaptation, although you could set an original story in that universe. Realm of the Elderlings I also suspect would not work as it's too internal a story without enough on-screen magic or massive battles (Liveship Traders, oddly, I think would work by itself though).

Actually, I think Drizzt would work surprisingly well as an adaptation. For a solid action-adventure series which allows for episodic storylines with a season-by-season story arc it could work well, provided you only adapted the six sequential novels (Crystal Shard through Siege of Darkness) and then developed the Dark Elf trilogy as a spin-off prequel. However, I think Hasbro are keeping their powder dry on any D&D project until the new movie comes out and they see how it does.

Memory, Sorrow and Thorn could work as well, especially now there's a sequel quintet to delve into to expand the universe and long-term appeal of the story.

Tales of the Ketty Jay is tailor-made to be a TV show and I think would work great. It would depend on someone being comfortable making a series that might be seen as deviating from the fantasy norms and is more like steampunk though.

But going back, I think Wheel of Time would be the most logical choice. It's the biggest-selling epic fantasy series since LotR (although ASoIaF is snapping at its heels, and fewer books means that ASoIaF now has far more readers), it has a traditional structure but some unusual quirks they can cross market (the One Power, the female-dominated magic), it has all the right ingredients and it's finished.

[williamjm]

11 hours ago, Ran said:

FotR made over $313 million domestically. Average movie ticket price at the time was $5.56, so 56.29 million tickets were purchased. It made more globally -- $555 million in foreign box office -- but while one might expect average ticket places overseas are lower, in fact the U.S. is on the lower end of the scale among first world nations, and the vast majority of its foreign earnings come in countries where ticket prices are more, not less, expensive. Still, lets say they have $5.56 average between them all, and you're at 100 million foreign viewers, or 156 million viewers globally.

If you're looking at the total viewership you also have to include people who saw it first on video/DVD/TV, for a lot of people that's how they tend to experience films rather than going to the cinema.

8 hours ago, Werthead said:

There are ways that Jackson's films can be improved on. Stop Slimer from saving Minas Tirith, make Faramir's arc a bit more coherent, show Denethor as a more complex and nuanced character (no disrespect to Noble, who did outstanding work with limited material). But these are reasonably minor plot points. I don't see them warranting remaking the entire story from scratch.

I think that while there are certainly things that could be adapted better there's also a lot of potential for new mistakes to be made, and if they've got more time to fill for a TV series then that probably implies they're going to be making more stuff up that wasn't in the books. Often it was Jackson's additions that tended to be the weakest parts of the series, and aside from the Scouring of the Shire I agree with a lot of the things he decided to cut out. The biggest advantage for the TV series is that they would be able to include the scouring plotline which I think was  important thematically in the books, there wouldn't realistically be time to include it in a film trilogy but a TV series could accommodate it.

1 hour ago, Corvinus said:

Harry Potter in the times of the founders of Hogwarts - you get the HP universe in a medieval setting, thus GoT with maybe a lighter tone, but more magic (and no nudity)

That's actually not a bad idea, certainly much better than a HP remake. 

Actually, I think Drizzt would work surprisingly well as an adaptation. For a solid action-adventure series which allows for episodic storylines with a season-by-season story arc it could work well, provided you only adapted the six sequential novels (Crystal Shard through Siege of Darkness) and then developed the Dark Elf trilogy as a spin-off prequel. However, I think Hasbro are keeping their powder dry on any D&D project until the new movie comes out and they see how it does.

If you're going for this approach of having an action adventure show that wasn't particularly deep then I've always thought the Dragonlance Chronicles had potential for an adaptation, although I wouldn't see it as a Game of Thrones equivalent because I don't think it would have the same appeal to the sort of people who wouldn't normally consider themselves fantasy fans.

[Martini Sigil]

Although I'll watch in good faith no matter what they decide to adapt..... if they base the show on the Silmarillion it could be a middle earth adaptation that would not taint the brilliance of the originally trilogy ....

https://www.amazon.com/Silmarillion-J-R-R-Tolkien/dp/0345325818

[BigFatCoward]

3 hours ago, Triskele said:

 

I'd be curious:  Is there anything close to a consensus, either among fans of the genre or of TV execs not opting do remake LotR, what the series is that has the most potential to be "XXXX's GoT?"  I imagine that's a conversation that's happening lots of places and not just at Amazon.  

Maybe Kingkiller Chronicles? since that's being made now?

I think the First Law has a good shot, because the first series would be a lot cheaper to film than the second, and the second much cheaper than the third, so you could build your viewership without having to make a huge initial financial commitment. 

And the reason why GOT i think is so huge, is because it isn't 'too fantasy' dragons aside, as the WW are limited in involvment for much of the storyline.  Much like the first law, a little bit of Bayaz magic and Fenris the Feared aside, not much at all in the first book.

[The Anti-Targ]

I'm struggling to conceive of a vision for adapting LOTR as a multi-season TV series. I mean, like it or hate it, the LOTR movies show that you can pretty much wrap up the whole of LOTR in roughly 9-12 hours of screen time. Maybe 15 if you want to put Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire in there. So are we really taking more about a Middle Earth TV series set in the concluding decades of the 3rd Age? Which might look to book end the series with The Hobbit at the start and LOTR at the end?

A strict adaptation of LOTR, puts about 20 years between Bilbo leaving the Shire and Frodo having to flee the Shire. So I suppose there is 20 years of "spin off" material that could be thrown into a TV "adaptation" of LOTR. What were Frodo and friends up to in that 20 years. What was Aragorn doing? What were the men of Gondor and Rohan doing? What were the various Elf clans up to? When did shit go bad in the mines of Moria? When and how did Saruman break bad? What were the other Istari up to? What the haps with Mordor? What did Gollum and Shelob talk about when they were hanging out hatching plans to deliver fresh non-orcy meat to Shelob? What did the swarthy races of men (racist much?) from East and South get up to, and why were they evil and hate the pure white folks of the West? There is a lot of stuff that happened within the timeline for LOTR from Bilbo leaving to the 18 months or so of Frodo's grand adventure, but none of it being the actual story of LOTR. So technically not really an adaptation, but rather a fill in the blanks.

[RedEyedGhost]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

Tales of the Ketty Jay is tailor-made to be a TV show and I think would work great. It would depend on someone being comfortable making a series that might be seen as deviating from the fantasy norms and is more like steampunk though.

I would love to see this.

 

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

I think the First Law has a good shot, because the first series would be a lot cheaper to film than the second, and the second much cheaper than the third, so you could build your viewership without having to make a huge initial financial commitment. 

Also this.

 

Another series that is tailor made for the screen is Mistborn.  Say what you will about his writing, but this could be an amazing series (if you got screenwriters that could up the dialog level).

[Krishtotter]

Barring the Quenta Silmarillion or Children of Hurin (which, as has already been noted, Christopher Tolkien will continue to ensure is never adapted in his lifetime), the only way I could envisage this even potentially working is with a completely original TV series following King Aragorn II and King Éomer in the Fourth Age. 

Otherwise, this is a nonsensical decision on Amazon's part.

 

[polishgenius]

5 hours ago, Werthead said:

Malazan, for example, is simply never going to happen as an adaptation, although you could set an original story in that universe. 

You could never adapt Malazan straight up, season-per-book style, but increasingly I think that with balls and a little bit of luck you could set up a massive extended universe based on the series. Intro a TV show as a semi-prequel following the Bridgeburners up to the Fall of Pale, the rest of GotM could be adapted fairly standard, second series style, and after that if it's successful you're golden to start spinning off from there.

 

 

3 hours ago, RedEyedGhost said:

Another series that is tailor made for the screen is Mistborn.  Say what you will about his writing, but this could be an amazing series (if you got screenwriters that could up the dialog level).

I think Mistborn is more of a film than a TV show (it's very Star Wars) but yeah, it has potential to be much stronger on screen than I think it is on the page.


First Law really is the obvious one (although it also, in the first trilogy, has a fairly film-friendly structure, less so than Mistborn probably), but I suspect that potential adapters might be a bit worried that it'll come off a little too close to GoT, even though it's not really.

[RhaenysBee]

I’m all in for this as long as they cameo the original cast. At least I won’t feel so damn old being a Lotr fan. 

[Calibandar]

On 11/5/2017 at 3:28 AM, Ferrum Aeternum said:

 Leave it to this crowd to piss on news this fucking exciting. 

I for one am very interested to see where this leads. It has the potential to be *gasp* more faithful than what Jackson produced? TV is certainly a better format than movies to tell a story as expansive as LOTR. Why not give it a chance?

Lol, exactly what I thought when I read the negativity here.

I also don't see why the LoTR tv show adaptation has to be criticized because it "should be another series".

They are probably looking for something to approach the success of the GoT franchise and thus you go to Tolkien. 

It's not a bad idea. The TV show is going to look and feel differently, have way more time, who knows, it might be good, and the Jackson films will always be there anyway.

As for Harry Potter, different target audience. If they're seeing the massive critical and financial success of GoT and want that, they're not going to think "Harry Potter". They'd likely think "what about Lord of the Rings". Maybe Wheel of Time but for some reason there is a lack of interest there ( maybe because the story isn't actually good?). They might even think Dark Tower but that is already in the works by someone else. They will not think Bakker or Erikson.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

On 11/4/2017 at 9:53 AM, polishgenius said:

It's premature, lazy, and stupid. I'm not even that fussed about WoT specifically, but there's that and so many other good shows they could make a series based on, but they can't be bothered with the work of building a fresh fanbase.

Agreed.  As much as I bitch about the problema in Jackson's LOTR (particularly ROTK) they are seminal works of cinema.  It is too soon for a remake.

[Eggegg]

I think anyone hoping for a more faithful adaptation will be sorely disappointed.

[The Drunkard]

10 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

I think the First Law has a good shot, because the first series would be a lot cheaper to film than the second, and the second much cheaper than the third, so you could build your viewership without having to make a huge initial financial commitment. 

And the reason why GOT i think is so huge, is because it isn't 'too fantasy' dragons aside, as the WW are limited in involvment for much of the storyline.  Much like the first law, a little bit of Bayaz magic and Fenris the Feared aside, not much at all in the first book.

Yeah, I think a FL series would have a lot of potential. A really entertaining story, good characters, interesting world and a format that would lend itself well to film/tv. For the first season the only big budget expense I can imagine are the sets, since iirc the only magic displayed is Bayaz choking someone, breaking a chair and setting some trees on fire. 

Incidentally I've always thought that the Abhorsen books would make for a good young adult movie series. 

[Werthead]

First Law I think would risk being seen as "more GoT", but with less of the elements that people have responded to (engaging young characters and dragons). I could see it doing well as a mid-level show on say Starz or AMC, but not "the next big thing." It doesn't have the scope for that.

Prince of Nothing is not impossible. It already has an attached producer/champion in the form of Chris Weitz, and although his star fell after the failure of The Golden Compass it's risen again due to the success of Rogue One and Cinderella. I think it's safe to say it's only going to happen with a lot of changes though.

I think Gentleman Bastard could do really well. I'm intrigued to hear who's the latest people interested (apparently someone has picked up the rights, but it can't be officially confirmed yet; no insider knowledge on this one but there's a lot of smoke blowing the same way out there).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

15 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

I wonder how much of this has to do with Tolkien's absolute hatred of the films.

Do you mean Christopher?