|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 25, 2017 1:42:39 GMT
We got the heralded Rings trilogy, of course, and the not-so-heralded Hobbit trilogy. Now what?
Are there any new projects in the works for the franchise, to anyone's knowledge? Would love to see more adventures in Middle Earth, personally.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2017 17:16:36 GMT
It's done cinematically.
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Mar 25, 2017 17:20:38 GMT
I think there are still some ideas floating around, but nothing concrete.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 25, 2017 23:19:55 GMT
We got the heralded Rings trilogy, of course, and the not-so-heralded Hobbit trilogy. Now what? Are there any new projects in the works for the franchise, to anyone's knowledge? Would love to see more adventures in Middle Earth, personally. That's it.
Why does there need to be anything more? Yes I get that you're going to say there are other stories Tolkien wrote. They don't need to be filmed.
Lord of the Rings was the main goal and it was done to perfection.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2017 1:58:58 GMT
Having read a lot of Tolkien's other writings, I'm gonna say right up front that most of them lend themselves to being to adapted to cinema even less than LOTR and The Hobbit.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 26, 2017 2:24:18 GMT
I've honestly not read anything outside the stuff that's already been adapted. Are the rest of his works more so historical accounts of Middle Earth and other intrinsically supplemental stuff? I remember reading that the "Silmarillion" was mined to beef up The Hobbit, and there was a ton of stuff I didn't remember in the new trilogy, but is it that there isn't ENOUGH to cobble together a good story, or it's not a story worth telling? Or both?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2017 3:00:57 GMT
The problem with The Silmarillion is it reads like a history textbook, but of a fictional world. It tells you what happens, but there is little character development or dialogue. Most of the characters are only in it briefly because the individual tales are basically summaries of the events making up the larger history of Middle-earth. Any filmmaker who tackled The Silmarillion would have to pick A story from it and write a mostly made-up script. The thought of any filmmaker being given that kind of freedom with Tolkien's writings scares me.
And if Tom Bombadil confounded Peter Jackson so much a cameo was impossible, then adapting The Adventures of Tom Bombadil isn't even a remote possibility.
|
|
bb15
Sophomore
@bb15
Posts: 220
Likes: 63
|
Post by bb15 on Mar 26, 2017 7:06:34 GMT
Yes, the LOTR franchise after The Hobbit movies is stagnant. - The cause is with the Tolkien estate. The estate does not want any more of Tolkien's fantasy world put into films or TV.
There is plenty of material left with Tolkien's writings to make a TV series that could be a combination of "Game of Thrones" / "Vikings" and "Merlin". But it can't be done.
Candidates for TV series material include; - A novel from The Silmarillion materials called "The Children of Hurin". - The chapters in The Silmarillion about Feanor's defiance of the Valar and the leaving of the Undying Lands to go to Middle-earth. - The complete defeat of the Elves by Melkor/Morgoth and then the overthrowing of Melkor/Morgoth by the Valar. - The setting up of Numenor by the Valar for the humans who were loyal. Then the corruption of Numenor by Sauron and the destruction of Numenor. - The battle between the Elves, humans and Sauron which has glimpses in the LOTR movies.
Imo at least, BB ;-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2017 14:03:47 GMT
I've honestly not read anything outside the stuff that's already been adapted. Are the rest of his works more so historical accounts of Middle Earth and other intrinsically supplemental stuff? Mostly, although there are a few sections that could be made into standalone stories. In fact, a story from The Silmarillion was reworked and released as it's own book, The Children of Hurin. But, only The Hobbit and LOTR were sold for movie rights, and the Tolkien estate is pretty clear that they won't sell the rights for any of the other books, at least as long as Christopher Tolkien is alive. So it's pretty much dead for now.... I remember reading that the "Silmarillion" was mined to beef up The Hobbit. They used the appendices from LOTR and mostly just made shit up for The Hobbit movies. They couldn't use material from The Silmarrilion unless it was also used in The Hobbit or LOTR books because that's all they had movie rights for.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 26, 2017 14:30:48 GMT
Thanks for taking the time to really explain some of the more intricate aspects of this to me. You three seem to've forgotten more than I'll ever know about Tolkien stuff.
I never realized that the Silmarrilion was such a problematic text to adapt; it sounds a lot like the earliest chapters of the Old Testament, honestly. I wouldn't be opposed to liberal adaptations in the way weirdraptor and bb15 said you'd basically have to do to make coherent, three-dimensional stories, but I can see why that piss off "purist" fans, no doubt.
Which kind of brings us to the MOST purist fans, the Tolkien estate: gotta plead ignorance here, too. I wasn't aware there were issues over which the estate was protective or restrictive. I just figured they would've loved the movies as much as everybody else, particularly the first trilogy, which was really a cinematic achievement and almost universally acclaimed; honestly, the only time I've ever heard anyone rag on it was the scene in Clerks 2, and even that was sort of just good-natured ribbing.
So maybe "stagnant" isn't the right word. Maybe it's more so "stuck"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2017 15:13:35 GMT
I never realized that the Silmarrilion was such a problematic text to adapt; it sounds a lot like the earliest chapters of the Old Testament, honestly. I wouldn't be opposed to liberal adaptations in the way weirdraptor and bb15 said you'd basically have to do to make coherent, three-dimensional stories, but I can see why that piss off "purist" fans, no doubt. I think The Silmarrillion would work better as a TV series in the vein of Game of Thrones, but with each season being self contained along the lines of American Horror Story. That would be the best venue to allow the various stories to be adapted. Which kind of brings us to the MOST purist fans, the Tolkien estate: gotta plead ignorance here, too. I wasn't aware there were issues over which the estate was protective or restrictive. I just figured they would've loved the movies as much as everybody else, particularly the first trilogy, which was really a cinematic achievement and almost universally acclaimed; honestly, the only time I've ever heard anyone rag on it was the scene in Clerks 2, and even that was sort of just good-natured ribbing. Honestly, I don't think Christopher Tolkien ever actually watched the films. But he was opposed to them being made and he spoke out against them. I think his comments were out of line when it came to LOTR, but they ended up being spot on when it came to The Hobbit (he was talking about LOTR films at the time). He basically claimed they were shitty adaptations used as an excuse to make un-necessary action scenes. So maybe "stagnant" isn't the right word. Maybe it's more so "stuck"? Yes.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 26, 2017 16:04:30 GMT
I never realized that the Silmarrilion was such a problematic text to adapt; it sounds a lot like the earliest chapters of the Old Testament, honestly. I wouldn't be opposed to liberal adaptations in the way weirdraptor and bb15 said you'd basically have to do to make coherent, three-dimensional stories, but I can see why that piss off "purist" fans, no doubt. I think The Silmarrillion would work better as a TV series in the vein of Game of Thrones, but with each season being self contained along the lines of American Horror Story. That would be the best venue to allow the various stories to be adapted. Yeah, this sounds awesome. I would totally be down for an anthology series set in Middle Earth as long as it were, like you said, done in a "high-end" way akin to Thrones.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 26, 2017 18:34:15 GMT
The problem with The Silmarillion is it reads like a history textbook, but of a fictional world. It tells you what happens, but there is little character development or dialogue. Most of the characters are only in it briefly because the individual tales are basically summaries of the events making up the larger history of Middle-earth. Any filmmaker who tackled The Silmarillion would have to pick A story from it and write a mostly made-up script. The thought of any filmmaker being given that kind of freedom with Tolkien's writings scares me. And if Tom Bombadil confounded Peter Jackson so much a cameo was impossible, then adapting The Adventures of Tom Bombadil isn't even a remote possibility. Tom Bombadil didn't confound Jackson, he simply is a character that isn't an inherent part of the story.
Frankly I knew he was never going to be a part of the film after reading the books. He doesn't belong in it. He sticks out like a sore thumb for being the bedtime story Tolkien wrote for his daughter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2017 18:38:19 GMT
Thanks for taking the time to really explain some of the more intricate aspects of this to me. You three seem to've forgotten more than I'll ever know about Tolkien stuff. I never realized that the Silmarrilion was such a problematic text to adapt; it sounds a lot like the earliest chapters of the Old Testament, honestly. I wouldn't be opposed to liberal adaptations in the way weirdraptor and bb15 said you'd basically have to do to make coherent, three-dimensional stories, but I can see why that piss off "purist" fans, no doubt. Which kind of brings us to the MOST purist fans, the Tolkien estate: gotta plead ignorance here, too. I wasn't aware there were issues over which the estate was protective or restrictive. I just figured they would've loved the movies as much as everybody else, particularly the first trilogy, which was really a cinematic achievement and almost universally acclaimed; honestly, the only time I've ever heard anyone rag on it was the scene in Clerks 2, and even that was sort of just good-natured ribbing. So maybe "stagnant" isn't the right word. Maybe it's more so "stuck"? The Old Testament is actually one of the sources Tolkien was drawing from, being a devout Catholic and all that. In fact, the very beginning is basically the Christian Creation Story with the names changed. My main problem with letting any filmmaker have that much free reign with Tolkien's writing is that we've already seen how it can go wrong, like The Hobbit trilogy where they took a three hundred page book and stretched and changed so much that it barely resembled the book it was supposed to be adapting anymore.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2017 18:41:13 GMT
The problem with The Silmarillion is it reads like a history textbook, but of a fictional world. It tells you what happens, but there is little character development or dialogue. Most of the characters are only in it briefly because the individual tales are basically summaries of the events making up the larger history of Middle-earth. Any filmmaker who tackled The Silmarillion would have to pick A story from it and write a mostly made-up script. The thought of any filmmaker being given that kind of freedom with Tolkien's writings scares me. And if Tom Bombadil confounded Peter Jackson so much a cameo was impossible, then adapting The Adventures of Tom Bombadil isn't even a remote possibility. Tom Bombadil didn't confound Jackson, he simply is a character that isn't an inherent part of the story.
Frankly I knew he was never going to be a part of the film after reading the books. He doesn't belong in it. He sticks out like a sore thumb for being the bedtime story Tolkien wrote for his daughter.
I both our explanations are true. Tom Bombadil IS a weird character that would be difficult to put on screen AND he's not important to the grander scheme.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 27, 2017 0:11:15 GMT
Thanks for taking the time to really explain some of the more intricate aspects of this to me. You three seem to've forgotten more than I'll ever know about Tolkien stuff. I never realized that the Silmarrilion was such a problematic text to adapt; it sounds a lot like the earliest chapters of the Old Testament, honestly. I wouldn't be opposed to liberal adaptations in the way weirdraptor and bb15 said you'd basically have to do to make coherent, three-dimensional stories, but I can see why that piss off "purist" fans, no doubt. Which kind of brings us to the MOST purist fans, the Tolkien estate: gotta plead ignorance here, too. I wasn't aware there were issues over which the estate was protective or restrictive. I just figured they would've loved the movies as much as everybody else, particularly the first trilogy, which was really a cinematic achievement and almost universally acclaimed; honestly, the only time I've ever heard anyone rag on it was the scene in Clerks 2, and even that was sort of just good-natured ribbing. So maybe "stagnant" isn't the right word. Maybe it's more so "stuck"? The Old Testament is actually one of the sources Tolkien was drawing from, being a devoid Catholic and all that. In fact, the very beginning is basically the Christian Creation Story with the names changed. My main problem with letting any filmmaker have that much free reign with Tolkien's writing is that we've already seen how it can go wrong, like The Hobbit trilogy where they took a three hundred page book and stretched and changed so much that it barely resembled the book it was supposed to be adapting anymore. Wasn't aware that Tolkien was deeply religious, but it doesn't surprise me. I would be open to the anthology series mentioned, but it's definitely a scenario ripe for the same issues the Hobbit adaptation faced, from what you all have said -- only skeletal outlines exist, requiring a lot of creative input and therefore the potential for disaster, especially with the increased challenge of making the various stories/"seasons" at the very least not contradictory, if not interconnected.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2017 0:47:42 GMT
The Old Testament is actually one of the sources Tolkien was drawing from, being a devoid Catholic and all that. In fact, the very beginning is basically the Christian Creation Story with the names changed. My main problem with letting any filmmaker have that much free reign with Tolkien's writing is that we've already seen how it can go wrong, like The Hobbit trilogy where they took a three hundred page book and stretched and changed so much that it barely resembled the book it was supposed to be adapting anymore. Wasn't aware that Tolkien was deeply religious, but it doesn't surprise me. I would be open to the anthology series mentioned, but it's definitely a scenario ripe for the same issues the Hobbit adaptation faced, from what you all have said -- only skeletal outlines exist, requiring a lot of creative input and therefore the potential for disaster, especially with the increased challenge of making the various stories/"seasons" at the very least not contradictory, if not interconnected. If I knew for a fact that the people making it were approaching it from a place of respect and not just wanting to make money, I'd be open to it, too. Otherwise, I'm content to have the rest of Tolkien's writing just remain writing.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Apr 2, 2017 1:37:31 GMT
Good question.
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Apr 21, 2017 5:53:08 GMT
I bet the whole Tolkien universe is re-done as an animated franchise before year 2050; 'reimagined' by some greedy studio.
|
|
gromel
Sophomore
@gromel
Posts: 278
Likes: 119
|
Post by gromel on Apr 23, 2017 3:05:48 GMT
I kind of want them to allow more movies and perhaps even licensed works by other authors.
Partly to get it over with, since a lot of fictional universes fall to this.
But mostly in the chance that some old forums I frequented would have more activity. Some good people there, now gone. You can have only so much completely new discussion without more new content. Granted that 10, 16 years ago I would've never thought this.
Also, the world needs competition for the Star Wars juggernaut, which is planned to be a neverending story. Hey, re-adapt that too. Same reason why I hope the new Dune will be good.
|
|