Amazon and WB discussing new LORD OF THE RINGS TV series

[Ran]

6 minutes ago, Werthead said:

I'm still trying to parse it. The LotR deal gets to $1 billion if it goes five full seasons. If there's only three seasons for TBP it shouldn't get close to that. Baffling.

Digging further, all I've found is that "investors" informed FT of these rumors. Investors at Amazon... or investors of the Chinese rights holder? I'm guessing the latter.

I could see that €1 billion yuan. $10 million for rights (which, honestly, is probably about the right assessment for rights), $150 million to produce three seasons, that sounds a lot more reasonable. But I don't see how FT would make that mistake.

[Loge]

I could see Bezos spend $1 billion on a show if he thought it's the next Game of Thrones. After listening through the Three Body Problem (first novel only) I don't think it's anywhere near good enough. And spending $1 billion on the rights would indeed be nuts. Unless he had some really big plans in China. But as far as I can see Amazon Video isn't even available in China, probably because of rights and censorship issues. 

[williamjm]

6 hours ago, Loge said:

I could see Bezos spend $1 billion on a show if he thought it's the next Game of Thrones. After listening through the Three Body Problem (first novel only) I don't think it's anywhere near good enough. And spending $1 billion on the rights would indeed be nuts. Unless he had some really big plans in China. But as far as I can see Amazon Video isn't even available in China, probably because of rights and censorship issues. 

I think Three Body Problem could make an interesting show, even though I had mixed feelings about the book, but it doesn't feel like an obvious blockbuster. There's not that much in the way of action, and most of the characters are a bit flat.

[Spring Bass]

I wonder how much he's planning to spend on that Cultureverse adaptation that they're supposedly going to do as well . . . 

For the LOTR series, I'm kind of hoping they don't bring back too many people from the movies. I want the series to feel different and be different even if they're aping some of the stylism of the movies. They're probably going to have to recast a bunch of people anyways. 

I still think it's going to be an adaptation of "Arwen and Aragorn". They've got the bones for five potential seasons in there. 

[Darth Richard II]

From what I;ve read most actors involved in the LotR film have expressed no interest in returning, with a few even being outright hostile to the idea. Only person I've seen keen on the idea is Gandalf.

[Spring Bass]

3 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

From what I;ve read most actors involved in the LotR film have expressed no interest in returning, with a few even being outright hostile to the idea. Only person I've seen keen on the idea is Gandalf.

That's good. Maybe if Gandalf is only doing cameos they could have McKellen show up once in a while in the part, but otherwise they should recast the whole thing. Bring some fresh blood on the production side as well - don't make it too similar to the Peter Jackson movies. 

[Myrddin]

I figured Mckellen would be the one actor not keen on returning, given his experience on the Hobbit almost making him give up acting.

(Isolated filming on a green screen set at Bag End)

As much as I love the man in the role, I'd rather none of the original cast comes back, even Serkis. Let this new version be a new thing.

[Mladen]

5 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

From what I;ve read most actors involved in the LotR film have expressed no interest in returning, with a few even being outright hostile to the idea. Only person I've seen keen on the idea is Gandalf.

Well, this is where the things get interesting for me. Not only that LOTR movies were a huge hit, the cast did such a wonderful job that the new readers identify characters with the faces of an actor. Yes, some can be replaced, but some won't be so easy. I just wait to see actors so brave to step up and try to match late Sir Christopher's Saruman's vocal might, or Sir Ian's mix of quirkiness and strength or Blanchett's serenity and grace as Galadriel. Worse for them, these are also actors being involved in Hobbit, which wasn't THAT long ago.

The casting will have to be impeccable, because people will compare the two and they won't be too kind. Yes, being compared with legends, living or dead, can be nice, but also overwhelming.

I am not sure what will Amazon do here. I hope they change the entire aesthetics of the previous adaptation. Because, if they don't, it will be truly difficult to evade the comparisons and, IMO, fail (the above-mentioned trio is, in my book, irreplaceable).

[red snow]

2 hours ago, Myrddin said:

I figured Mckellen would be the one actor not keen on returning, given his experience on the Hobbit almost making him give up acting.

(Isolated filming on a green screen set at Bag End)

As much as I love the man in the role, I'd rather none of the original cast comes back, even Serkis. Let this new version be a new thing.

I agree. They need a clean break and this means new casting. While it's hard to imagine better interpretations it's premature to feel these roles are listed. There have been multiple actors play Bond, Spidey, Sherlock, Hannibal lector etc and there will always be people preferring different actors. For me it's best when the actor brings a different aspect of the character out. The characters from lotr have enough depth for various takes. McKellen's Gandalf will be hard to top but it's not to say someone else couldn't play with the darker aspects of the character (although McClellan could tap into it when required).

Using any of the old cast will just lead to trouble eg "that's not how that character behaves". It would also dictate the writing to some extent as they would have to maintain the portrayal.

[Werthead]

On 04/04/2018 at 1:06 PM, red snow said:

I agree. They need a clean break and this means new casting. While it's hard to imagine better interpretations it's premature to feel these roles are listed. There have been multiple actors play Bond, Spidey, Sherlock, Hannibal lector etc and there will always be people preferring different actors. For me it's best when the actor brings a different aspect of the character out. The characters from lotr have enough depth for various takes. McKellen's Gandalf will be hard to top but it's not to say someone else couldn't play with the darker aspects of the character (although McClellan could tap into it when required).

Using any of the old cast will just lead to trouble eg "that's not how that character behaves". It would also dictate the writing to some extent as they would have to maintain the portrayal.

Worth remembering that, between the Bakshi 1978 film, the Rankin/Bass Hobbit in 1977 and the massive 1981 BBC Radio adaptation, we have already had multiple actors playing roles in the series. Ian Holm played Frodo in the BBC adaptation, for example, which is why he was cast as Bilbo in the LotR movies. John Hurt was an excellent Aragorn in the Bakshi movie. Michael Horden was an excellent Gandalf in the radio version, and Bill Nighy (!) was a superb Sam. 

Obviously the Jackson movies are the overwhelmingly most famous adaptations, but they're not the only ones. 

[James Arryn]

Calling it now, Streep as Gandalf. 

[red snow]

37 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Worth remembering that, between the Bakshi 1978 film, the Rankin/Bass Hobbit in 1977 and the massive 1981 BBC Radio adaptation, we have already had multiple actors playing roles in the series. Ian Holm played Frodo in the BBC adaptation, for example, which is why he was cast as Bilbo in the LotR movies. John Hurt was an excellent Aragorn in the Bakshi movie. Michael Horden was an excellent Gandalf in the radio version, and Bill Nighy (!) was a superb Sam. 

Obviously the Jackson movies are the overwhelmingly most famous adaptations, but they're not the only ones. 

And I'm sure there are some who feel those versions had some of the best interpretations too

I think there's a difference between voice actors starring in live-action and from live-action to live action though. I guess Serkis could easily play a role in the new show thanks to him never really being in it (besides briefly). Similarly any of the others could turn up in roles where only their voice is required. John Rhys Davies did it within the trilogy already.

[Mladen]

34 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Worth remembering that, between the Bakshi 1978 film, the Rankin/Bass Hobbit in 1977 and the massive 1981 BBC Radio adaptation, we have already had multiple actors playing roles in the series. Ian Holm played Frodo in the BBC adaptation, for example, which is why he was cast as Bilbo in the LotR movies. John Hurt was an excellent Aragorn in the Bakshi movie. Michael Horden was an excellent Gandalf in the radio version, and Bill Nighy (!) was a superb Sam. 

Obviously the Jackson movies are the overwhelmingly most famous adaptations, but they're not the only ones. 

And that two of those were animated movies and third a radio adaptation, which goes nowhere near in terms of cast comparisons as this adaptation would go. Being the voice of Gandalf and being the voice and face of Gandalf are two very different things.

[Darth Richard II]

47 minutes ago, red snow said:

And I'm sure there are some who feel those versions had some of the best interpretations too

I think there's a difference between voice actors starring in live-action and from live-action to live action though. I guess Serkis could easily play a role in the new show thanks to him never really being in it (besides briefly). Similarly any of the others could turn up in roles where only their voice is required. John Rhys Davies did it within the trilogy already.

Heh, John Rhys Davies has been the most vocal about how this tv series can go fuck itself.

[red snow]

32 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Heh, John Rhys Davies has been the most vocal about how this tv series can go fuck itself.

probably not on Bezo's amazon prime wishlist

[Werthead]

Here we go: Jackson on board with LORD OF THE RINGS TV series.

Which is only fair as the premise sounds like they ripped it from Jackson and Del Toro's aborted "bridge movie" before MGM went nuts and demanded 3 movies based on The Hobbit alone (leading to Del Toro walking).

My guess is that Jackson will co-write and direct the first episode, will advise and will then take a backseat role. The advantage is that Weta can now provide the effects, which will be quite helpful.

New information: The Tolkien Estate had to sign a new deal because it was ambiguous if the 1968 film rights included TV (Amazon couldn't proceed without that clarity). That's huge, as the Tolkien Estate has never given permission for a new screen adaptation of any Tolkien material. That may also indicate they're more open to the other books being available later on.

[Mladen]

42 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Here we go: Jackson on board with LORD OF THE RINGS TV series.

Which is only fair as the premise sounds like they ripped it from Jackson and Del Toro's aborted "bridge movie" before MGM went nuts and demanded 3 movies based on The Hobbit alone (leading to Del Toro walking).

My guess is that Jackson will co-write and direct the first episode, will advise and will then take a backseat role. The advantage is that Weta can now provide the effects, which will be quite helpful.

New information: The Tolkien Estate had to sign a new deal because it was ambiguous if the 1968 film rights included TV (Amazon couldn't proceed without that clarity). That's huge, as the Tolkien Estate has never given permission for a new screen adaptation of any Tolkien material. That may also indicate they're more open to the other books being available later on.

Those are very interesting news. I always wondered what "bridge movie" may or may not include with so many pieces on the board. I would have also liked to have seen the various other sides of War of the Ring, especially the fights Dwarves and Elves against Sauron had, then fight against Dol Guldur and Galadriel's cleansing of the Fortress. It still may get interesting... And with Jackson's and Weta involvement, how different the world will actually be?

[fionwe1987]

3 hours ago, Werthead said:

Here we go: Jackson on board with LORD OF THE RINGS TV series.

Which is only fair as the premise sounds like they ripped it from Jackson and Del Toro's aborted "bridge movie" before MGM went nuts and demanded 3 movies based on The Hobbit alone (leading to Del Toro walking).

My guess is that Jackson will co-write and direct the first episode, will advise and will then take a backseat role. The advantage is that Weta can now provide the effects, which will be quite helpful.

New information: The Tolkien Estate had to sign a new deal because it was ambiguous if the 1968 film rights included TV (Amazon couldn't proceed without that clarity). That's huge, as the Tolkien Estate has never given permission for a new screen adaptation of any Tolkien material. That may also indicate they're more open to the other books being available later on.

I'm just not sure there enough... tension in the story between the Hobbit and LotR. There's nothing crazily epic, no big moments.

Sure, they could come up with some, but those would clash with the story of LotR as it is in the books.

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

[Corvinus85]

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...

[The Marquis de Leech]

9 hours ago, Werthead said:

Worth remembering that, between the Bakshi 1978 film, the Rankin/Bass Hobbit in 1977 and the massive 1981 BBC Radio adaptation, we have already had multiple actors playing roles in the series. Ian Holm played Frodo in the BBC adaptation, for example, which is why he was cast as Bilbo in the LotR movies. John Hurt was an excellent Aragorn in the Bakshi movie. Michael Horden was an excellent Gandalf in the radio version, and Bill Nighy (!) was a superb Sam. 

Obviously the Jackson movies are the overwhelmingly most famous adaptations, but they're not the only ones. 

There are also some utterly obscure adaptations: the 1985 Soviet Hobbit, and the 1993 Finnish TV Lord of the Rings.

(The first one, the 1966 Hobbit, is entirely narrated, so no acting).