Jump to content

Amazon and WB discussing new LORD OF THE RINGS TV series


Werthead

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Corvinus said:

Oh great! <_< So this new series is (potentially) in continuity with Jackson's films, we could get Orlando Bloom back as Legolas, more bullshit with the Ringwraiths in made up locations, and rollercoaster action scenes...

You want to say that you are AGAINST Legolas defying gravity? Blasphemy :D

IDK, it can get interesting, especially if they decide to do expansion of War of the Ring. On the other hand, yes, given the said continuity, it draws back all the crap from Hobbit movies.

6 hours ago, fionwe1987 said:

I still wish they went with the fall of Numenor and the rise of Gondor and Arnor, and the first War of the Ring.

This would be perfect, but we won't get that. The first War of the Ring would be indeed epic, and it would contain some amazing elements - known enemy, the ring bearers, crazy epic battle... That one would draw big numbers because it is new setup with amazingly epic conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Risto said:

This would be perfect, but we won't get that. The first War of the Ring would be indeed epic, and it would contain some amazing elements - known enemy, the ring bearers, crazy epic battle... That one would draw big numbers because it is new setup with amazingly epic conflict.

Precisely. And the Fall of Numenor and the creation of the Rings, the rift between Celebrimbor and Galadriel, all that has suitable dramatic potential. Added to which, a lot of it is in the appendices, if not all the details. So they'd be covered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, fionwe1987 said:

Precisely. And the Fall of Numenor and the creation of the Rings, the rift between Celebrimbor and Galadriel, all that has suitable dramatic potential. Added to which, a lot of it is in the appendices, if not all the details. So they'd be covered.

The allure of doing first War of the Ring is undoubted. You have all the pieces that would make the LOTR fans drool, you can hire some members of the old cast (Elrond, Galadriel) to draw attention, you have the epic story you need and above else, you have enough leeway to insert some new elements and subplots that would enrich the story. 

At this point, everything is better than just doing LOTR story all over again. 

And to go back about whether doing LOTR seems too early, it does. Last weekend, there was a LOTR quiz in Belgrade, actually there were two semi-finals due to high interest. Questions were only movies-related. And given that my team knew that Peter Jackson was the pirate whom Legolas has killed in 3rd movie, that the gates to Gondor is called Argonath, Brego's name and the fact Sam was carrying salt with him. Those movies linger in our mind the same way Arwen did in Middle Earth. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/lord-of-the-rings-tv-show-amazon-peter-jackson-tolkien-most-expensive-a8292196.html

Quote

The upcoming show will chronicle the events before the first of the three Lord of The Rings books, "The Fellowship Of The Ring." 

Considering this it's unlikely Bloom will play Legolas, since Bloom, not being an elf, has aged considerably since Jackson's LOTR.

Except there are rumors that some of Jackson's LOTR footage may be used -- I dunno how that would work, considering the contract's terms, among other things.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/movies/amazon-lord-of-the-rings-series-news-cast/

Wonder what Apple Streaming will come up with as a rival blockbuster.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Zorral said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/lord-of-the-rings-tv-show-amazon-peter-jackson-tolkien-most-expensive-a8292196.html

Considering this it's unlikely Bloom will play Legolas, since Bloom, not being an elf, has aged considerably since Jackson's LOTR.

Except there are rumors that some of Jackson's LOTR footage may be used -- I dunno how that would work, considering the contract's terms, among other things.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/movies/amazon-lord-of-the-rings-series-news-cast/

Wonder what Apple Streaming will come up with as a rival blockbuster.

 

Well, Bloom played Legolas in Hobbit 2 and 3 and the age difference between LOTR 3 and Hobbit 2 is 9 years. It is not unreasonable to assume that, if they need Legolas, they can count on Bloom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Zorral said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/lord-of-the-rings-tv-show-amazon-peter-jackson-tolkien-most-expensive-a8292196.html

Considering this it's unlikely Bloom will play Legolas, since Bloom, not being an elf, has aged considerably since Jackson's LOTR.

Except there are rumors that some of Jackson's LOTR footage may be used -- I dunno how that would work, considering the contract's terms, among other things.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/movies/amazon-lord-of-the-rings-series-news-cast/

Wonder what Apple Streaming will come up with as a rival blockbuster.

 

That Independent article is atrocious. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

And to go back about whether doing LOTR seems too early, it does. Last weekend, there was a LOTR quiz in Belgrade, actually there were two semi-finals due to high interest. Questions were only movies-related. And given that my team knew that Peter Jackson was the pirate whom Legolas has killed in 3rd movie, that the gates to Gondor is called Argonath, Brego's name and the fact Sam was carrying salt with him. Those movies linger in our mind the same way Arwen did in Middle Earth. 

 

I still think people are in denial about this.

Jackson's movies entered development in 1995. They got the greenlight in 1997 (21 years ago), started set construction and pre-vis in 1998 (20 years ago) and started shooting in 1999 (19 years ago). The first movie was released in 2001 (17 years ago). Add 2 years onto all those figures for when the TV series actually starts airing. You'll have kids in college who were born after the first movie came out. If it was a remake I don't think it'd be too soon (although it might be borderline), but as an addition to the Jackson universe it's definitely not too soon (and may be too late).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Ran said:

All evidence points to Amazon doing a LotR prequel rather than a straight up LotR remake. So all this stuff about remaking LotR is pretty moot, IMO.

Yeah, it seems so.

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

I still think people are in denial about this.

Jackson's movies entered development in 1995. They got the greenlight in 1997 (21 years ago), started set construction and pre-vis in 1998 (20 years ago) and started shooting in 1999 (19 years ago). The first movie was released in 2001 (17 years ago). Add 2 years onto all those figures for when the TV series actually starts airing. You'll have kids in college who were born after the first movie came out. If it was a remake I don't think it'd be too soon (although it might be borderline), but as an addition to the Jackson universe it's definitely not too soon (and may be too late).

Yeah, I was just going back in my mind to the time we thought it was a possible remake.  Remember how we discussed about whether it is too early for a remake? Since then, some things happened (the said quiz) which made me believe that for remake, it is still a bit too early. Although, you do have a point. That said, what is even an appropriate time for a remake? 20, 30, 40 years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Ran said:

All evidence points to Amazon doing a LotR prequel rather than a straight up LotR remake. So all this stuff about remaking LotR is pretty moot, IMO.

All the stories I've seen say flat-out it's a prequel not a remake.  So I don't have any idea why above Corvinus just flat-out says the Independent notice is awful -- particularly as it links to a much longer piece, that says the same thing -- which has been stated by every venue, from Variety to Entertainment Weekly, since the announcement last year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose Corvinus may be anticipating that if the prequel is a success, once it runs its course, _then_ Amazon might want to remake LotR for the small screen. I suppose that's possible. There's a lot of ifs and maybes in that, though. Too early to really worry about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Zorral said:

All the stories I've seen say flat-out it's a prequel not a remake.  So I don't have any idea why above Corvinus just flat-out says the Independent notice is awful -- particularly as it links to a much longer piece, that says the same thing -- which has been stated by every venue, from Variety to Entertainment Weekly, since the announcement last year

Because of some of the content. I'm pretty sure LOTR made more than $2B in total, since ROTK alone made over $1B. And speaking of ROTK, it is "Return of the King", not "The King Returns". The Lord of the Rings is one book, however many volumes publishers choose to publish it in. So, yeah, terrible article, written by someone who simply stole info from another site, and couldn't really be bothered to do any other research.

Edit: Now I'm chuckling at all the speculation of what I meant above. Apologies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether something is too early for a remake isn't (IMO) about how many years it's been, it's also about how much of a landmark the film in question is.

It absolutely is too early for a remake of The Godfather, or 2001: A Space Oddysey for example. An homage, or set in the world, then fine, but not a remake.

 

I'd then suggest that LOTR (Potter too) is pivotal in film making (not to the same!e degree as TG or 2001), which means it needs to be left longer.

I'd also suggest that with films having been ubiquitously available in existing media formats (DVD/BluRay) also extends how long "too soon" is.

Personally, I'm delighted that this conversation is nowmin the hypothetical, rather than of genuine concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a side-tangent this takedown of the Hobbit movies (Part 1 and Part 2) is entertaining, especially the analysis of the production/studio interference. Getting an interview with one of the actors who had some of the inside skinny on what happened was quite a coup for a YouTuber.

That may also suggest why Jackson might be interested in getting involved. The opportunity to redeem his name after the Hobbit trilogy by giving him total creative control might be tempting. Although I'm still convinced this is going to be a PINO and directing-the-first-episode deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Werthead said:

On a side-tangent this takedown of the Hobbit movies (Part 1 and Part 2) is entertaining, especially the analysis of the production/studio interference. Getting an interview with one of the actors who had some of the inside skinny on what happened was quite a coup for a YouTuber.

Those are really good, especially the second one. The dwarves kind of had the issue in the book as well where most of them didn't get much in the way of character development, but the movies after #1 didn't really help on that. Especially by Five Armies, where they felt like extras in their own film because the story was all about that interminably long battle, Thorin, Kili, and the love triangle. 

That bit about why they did the three movies was really interesting as well, with the multiple company getting cuts of revenue just from the first film. I'll give the studio this - whatever we think about the quality of the third Hobbit film, it probably paid off for them ($956 million at the box office alone). 

6 hours ago, Werthead said:

That may also suggest why Jackson might be interested in getting involved. The opportunity to redeem his name after the Hobbit trilogy by giving him total creative control might be tempting. Although I'm still convinced this is going to be a PINO and directing-the-first-episode deal.

Maybe he'll agree to direct more if they keep most of  it in New Zealand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jackson's potential involvement makes me less interested. I think people try too hard to absolve him of The Hobbit's flaws - they share many with his Rings trilogy - but even then, his last non-Middle-Earth film was 2009's The Lovely Bones. Which was genuinely awful. I also don't think his Rings films were all that great, mildly entertaining, but neither great films or adaptations of the book. So eh, I guess if he comes aboard I'll know what to expect: shallow themes, overwrought attempts at pathos and the focus primarily on extended action scenes and empty spectacle. It's not really what Tolkien is to me but it's what his work has become. And people seem happy with that, so good for them, I suppose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AlpenglowMemories said:

Jackson's potential involvement makes me less interested. I think people try too hard to absolve him of The Hobbit's flaws - they share many with his Rings trilogy - but even then, his last non-Middle-Earth film was 2009's The Lovely Bones. Which was genuinely awful. I also don't think his Rings films were all that great, mildly entertaining, but neither great films or adaptations of the book. So eh, I guess if he comes aboard I'll know what to expect: shallow themes, overwrought attempts at pathos and the focus primarily on extended action scenes and empty spectacle. It's not really what Tolkien is to me but it's what his work has become. And people seem happy with that, so good for them, I suppose. 

I don't think this is entirely fair to Jackson and his team. I don't think that LOTR movies were not great films. They were. Probably not classics like "Citizen Kane" or "Godfather" series, but nonetheless, they were successful in transmitting Tolkien's books to another medium. Would Tolkien be satisfied? We can only speculate. We know Christopher wasn't. I understand that there are some elements that lacked in LOTR series that would give depth but I do believe that lion's share of the Tolkien's themes were faithfully put onto the screen. Things certainly get murkier with Hobbit, as I feel no one understand what the point of those movies was (other than money, that is). I was teen when LOTR movies came out, and I remember how excited I was about them. Years after, I still watch them and I find them inspiring. Hobbit is another story and the links @Werthead provided give interesting insight. Simply, "Hobbit" should have never been made without clear understanding what it's supposed to be. 

IDK, even with all the silliness, questionable CGI and multiple endings, I found the story completely amazing. I still do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...