Fantasy New Lord of the Rings movies in the works

[DarkKnight88]

I still contend that the first Hobbit movie works really well and has some brilliant scenes up there with the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Movie 2 nails Smaug as best as it’s ever going to be - minus the running around bit, more the Bilbo/Smaug interaction. And yeah, movie 3 sucks overall.

 

[InCali]

PJ originally wanted to do two movies. Movie 1 would’ve been an adaptation of The Hobbit and movie two would’ve been a prequel to Fellowship that would’ve followed Gandalf, Legolas and Aragorn hunting Gollum and Sauron returning to Mordor. WB demanded that The Hobbit be a trilogy and the rest is history.

PJ didn’t want to direct The Hobbit. He only agreed to do it so that the New Zealand crew could keep their jobs.

I read a PJ interview about making The Hobbit 3 movies and he went on about how much material there was and how he could make 3 good movies out of it. Now, it was clear that the studio was pushing him and it's entirely possible that he felt compelled to lie.

 

[henzINNIT]

I've never seen compelling evidence that Hobbit 3 was studio demanded. Could well be the case, but I have never seen anyone who'd know actually come out and say it.

It's totally possible it was Jackson's own idea (as he claimed at the time). Not that I believe it was for creative reasons. The production timeline was so, SO f***ed that I suspect it was a play for time. There was no chance the crew were going to make the deadline to finish in 2. It was either delay releases, or break it up and get an extra year in the process.

 

[Drizzle]

No sane director would ever make the decision to split two movies into a trilogy mere months before the first film is scheduled to be released. I think that was all WB.

 

[KillerMcQueen]

Nobody involved has outright admitted it, but watching the special features for Desolation and Five Armies it's not hard to read between the lines, filming was taking longer than expected, Jackson needed more time, and the only way he could get that time from WB was to make it three films, I would really like to eventually get a proper two film edit from Jackson.

 

[Lily Adler]

Nobody involved has outright admitted it, but watching the special features for Desolation and Five Armies it's not hard to read between the lines, filming was taking longer than expected, Jackson needed more time, and the only way he could get that time from WB was to make it three films, I would really like to eventually get a proper two film edit from Jackson.

The Hobbit Part I: An Unexpected Journey
The Hobbit Part II: The Desolation of Smaug

 

[Drizzle]

The Hobbit Part I: An Unexpected Journey
The Hobbit Part II: The Desolation of Smaug

Wasn't the original title for the second film There And Back Again before the split was made?

 

[Lily Adler]

Wasn't the original title for the second film There And Back Again before the split was made?

 

[InCali]

I've never seen compelling evidence that Hobbit 3 was studio demanded. Could well be the case, but I have never seen anyone who'd know actually come out and say it.

It's totally possible it was Jackson's own idea (as he claimed at the time). Not that I believe it was for creative reasons. The production timeline was so, SO f***ed that I suspect it was a play for time. There was no chance the crew were going to make the deadline to finish in 2. It was either delay releases, or break it up and get an extra year in the process.

Agreed. It "seemed" pretty clear to me, but if you're in the movie business, it's probably not a good idea to blame the people bankrolling you to the tune of 100s of millions of dollars.

I just think PJ, in general, screwed up a lot in both of his trilogies and used making the book a better movie as an excuse. I can use a ton of examples, but they've been brought up before.

I confess to being a complete and utter Tolkien nerd. I've probably read LotRs maybe close to 100 times and The Silmarillion maybe 30 or 40 times. The Hobbit maybe "only" 10 times LOL

I've read everything (including The History of Middle Earth) at least once. My book collection is on my website in case anyone is interested.

 

[henzINNIT]

No sane director would ever make the decision to split two movies into a trilogy mere months before the first film is scheduled to be released. I think that was all WB.

They would if principal photography had wrapped and the climactic battle hadn't been shot, which is the situation Jackson faced. It can't be over-stated just how desperate that production was.

As much as I believe the 3 film structure was completely broken, I do also think Jackson would have struggled to conform to the 2 film plan regardless of deadlines. Part 1 was going to end with the barrel sequence, which is a lot of movie when you look at how much footage he shot. I think it's quite possible that Peter "3 hour theatrical cut plus an extended version later" Jackson himself could seduced by the potential of another chapter, ha.

 

[InCali]

They would if principal photography had wrapped and the climactic battle hadn't been shot, which is the situation Jackson faced. It can't be over-stated just how desperate that production was.

As much as I believe the 3 film structure was completely broken, I do also think Jackson would have struggled to conform to the 2 film plan regardless of deadlines. Part 1 was going to end with the barrel sequence, which is a lot of movie when you look at how much footage he shot. I think it's quite possible that Peter "3 hour theatrical cut plus an extended version later" Jackson himself could seduced by the potential of another chapter, ha.

I would have been fine with, say, (2) 2+ hour movies covering The Hobbit and a movie that covered the 60 years leading up to the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring. That could have been really, really interesting. The problem is that PJ couldn't get out of his own way and made up stupid, stupid storylines to increase the "theatrical" experience (or whatever you want to call the garbage he threw in the movies) and completely screwed things up.

Hey, I get that people generally like the LotR trilogy and I liked it myself, but it could have been so much better if Jackson wasn't constantly putting in these lame, lame storylines. Pisses me off....so much potential wasted. He had something and fumbled it. On that level, I found that very disappointing.

 

[Deck Rickard]

Oh **** it. Just make a Shadow of Mordor movie.

 

[squeekness]

A four hour movie about the Entmoot. Most action-packed movie ever.

An Oscar winner for Best Picture right there.

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

Given that I'm not interested in stories of Middle-Earth not written by Tolkien, and that Rings of Power was surprisingly bad even with no expectations going in, I can't say that I have any desire to see whatever they are going to make.

Then I'll probably end up cursing myself when I watch it anyway.

 

[Iceman]

Oh **** it. Just make a Shadow of Mordor movie.

Could be a good alternative option too. I want the games to continue if possible, not sure what the rights situation is right now.

 

[henzINNIT]

I still contend that the first Hobbit movie works really well and has some brilliant scenes up there with the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Movie 2 nails Smaug as best as it’s ever going to be - minus the running around bit, more the Bilbo/Smaug interaction. And yeah, movie 3 sucks overall.

Yessir. The Hobbit films have moments of greatness. I'm always going on about it, but I have a blu ray of editor M4's cut of The Hobbit and it is delightful. Watched it several times and couldn't recommend it enough to everyone.

I would have been fine with, say, (2) 2+ hour movies covering The Hobbit and a movie that covered the 60 years leading up to the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring. That could have been really, really interesting. The problem is that PJ couldn't get out of his own way and made up stupid, stupid storylines to increase the "theatrical" experience (or whatever you want to call the garbage he threw in the movies) and completely screwed things up.

Hey, I get that people generally like the LotR trilogy and I liked it myself, but it could have been so much better if Jackson wasn't constantly putting in these lame, lame storylines. Pisses me off....so much potential wasted. He had something and fumbled it. On that level, I found that very disappointing.

I'm a Jackson fanboy to be honest. I think LOTR is one of, if not the greatest trilogy in film history. There are some changes I don't love but nothing that ruins the experience for me. I'm very forgiving of The Hobbit too. As he was winging it the whole time, he did a better job than most would. Trim the excess and I really like what's left.

Oh **** it. Just make a Shadow of Mordor movie.

Nonononononononooooooooooo

I'd gladly take another game though. Tons of fun.

 

[InCali]

I'm a Jackson fanboy to be honest. I think LOTR is one of, if not the greatest trilogy in film history. There are some changes I don't love but nothing that ruins the experience for me. I'm very forgiving of The Hobbit too. As he was winging it the whole time, he did a better job than most would. Trim the excess and I really like what's left.

I completely understand. I gave him that I enjoyed the first trilogy and think he had something going, but made some just silly, unnecessary moves along the way. All of this is from someone who loves the books with a passion and I try to keep that in mind. That being said:

Arwen replacing Glorfindel
Completely writing out Farmer Maggot, Bombadil, and Fog on the Barrow-downs
The death of Saruman
Aragorn seeming to fall during his battle with the Orcs in Rohan.....lord help me...
The Paths of the Dead
Gandalf's confrontation with the Witch King at the gates of Minas Tirith.....SMH

I could go on, but there's no need. I've had the Bombadil discussion more than once and I know PJ "SAID" he thought it wouldn't fit, but I see it as more of a failing of creativity on his part or perhaps the studio got involved. The pacing could have been easily handled. My take was (and I could be wrong) that he didn't feel like he had the time, but he sure as hell had time to add extraneous stuff that wasn't in the book and did nothing to advance the story. The trickiest part would be the ending and not have it drag on too long. I think probably 5 slightly shorter movies spread out over 3 years (2 for the fellowship, 2 for the two towers, and one for the return of the king) with an epilogue of the story of Aragorn and Arwen would have easily allowed him a full telling of the story. The last part can be debated, but IMO he clearly was pandering to Arwen (did the same thing with whatever the hell that female elf's name was that never existed in the hobbit) and just took some liberties that were ill conceived and added nothing....in fact detracted.

And this is coming from someone who confesses to rather liking the movies. Like I said PJ was on to something and kind of muffed it.....still made some good "movies" though.

I thought The Hobbit, after a reasonable start, turned into a steaming pile.

On thing I will say is that the disagreements on this site are a hell of a lot more polite than when I've posted on reddit. LOL. I was getting blasted for even saying I liked the movies, but thought PJ screwed up. You have to hate him or you're in the crosshairs.

 

[squeekness]

I completely understand. I gave him that I enjoyed the first trilogy and think he had something going, but made some just silly, unnecessary moves along the way. All of this is from someone who loves the books with a passion and I try to keep that in mind. That being said:

Arwen replacing Glorfindel
Completely writing out Farmer Maggot, Bombadil, and Fog on the Barrow-downs
The death of Saruman
Aragorn seeming to fall during his battle with the Orcs in Rohan.....lord help me...
The Paths of the Dead
Gandalf's confrontation with the Witch King at the gates of Minas Tirith.....SMH

I could go on, but there's no need. I've had the Bombadil discussion more than once and I know PJ "SAID" he thought it wouldn't fit, but I see it as more of a failing of creativity on his part or perhaps the studio got involved. The pacing could have been easily handled. My take was (and I could be wrong) that he didn't feel like he had the time, but he sure as hell had time to add extraneous stuff that wasn't in the book and did nothing to advance the story. The trickiest part would be the ending and not have it drag on too long. I think probably 5 slightly shorter movies spread out over 3 years (2 for the fellowship, 2 for the two towers, and one for the return of the king) with an epilogue of the story of Aragorn and Arwen would have easily allowed him a full telling of the story. The last part can be debated, but IMO he clearly was pandering to Arwen (did the same thing with whatever the hell that female elf's name was that never existed in the hobbit) and just took some liberties that were ill conceived and added nothing....in fact detracted.

And this is coming from someone who confesses to rather liking the movies. Like I said PJ was on to something and kind of muffed it.....still made some good "movies" though.

I thought The Hobbit, after a reasonable start, turned into a steaming pile.

On thing I will say is that the disagreements on this site are a hell of a lot more polite than when I've posted on reddit. LOL. I was getting blasted for even saying I liked the movies, but thought PJ screwed up. You have to hate him or you're in the crosshairs.

There is no rule that says everyone has to like everything. My friend keeps recommending these B horror movies to me that she thinks are just amazing and I think are awful. Movies are art so it's simply a matter of taste. I really do try not to tell someone they are stupid for hating something I love because it's also going to be true the other way round.

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

I completely understand. I gave him that I enjoyed the first trilogy and think he had something going, but made some just silly, unnecessary moves along the way. All of this is from someone who loves the books with a passion and I try to keep that in mind. That being said:

Arwen replacing Glorfindel
Completely writing out Farmer Maggot, Bombadil, and Fog on the Barrow-downs
The death of Saruman
Aragorn seeming to fall during his battle with the Orcs in Rohan.....lord help me...
The Paths of the Dead
Gandalf's confrontation with the Witch King at the gates of Minas Tirith.....SMH

I could go on, but there's no need. I've had the Bombadil discussion more than once and I know PJ "SAID" he thought it wouldn't fit, but I see it as more of a failing of creativity on his part or perhaps the studio got involved. The pacing could have been easily handled. My take was (and I could be wrong) that he didn't feel like he had the time, but he sure as hell had time to add extraneous stuff that wasn't in the book and did nothing to advance the story. The trickiest part would be the ending and not have it drag on too long. I think probably 5 slightly shorter movies spread out over 3 years (2 for the fellowship, 2 for the two towers, and one for the return of the king) with an epilogue of the story of Aragorn and Arwen would have easily allowed him a full telling of the story. The last part can be debated, but IMO he clearly was pandering to Arwen (did the same thing with whatever the hell that female elf's name was that never existed in the hobbit) and just took some liberties that were ill conceived and added nothing....in fact detracted.

And this is coming from someone who confesses to rather liking the movies. Like I said PJ was on to something and kind of muffed it.....still made some good "movies" though.

I thought The Hobbit, after a reasonable start, turned into a steaming pile.

On thing I will say is that the disagreements on this site are a hell of a lot more polite than when I've posted on reddit. LOL. I was getting blasted for even saying I liked the movies, but thought PJ screwed up. You have to hate him or you're in the crosshairs.

It's fun seeing your list of extra bad alterations and realize that I, as someone that also loves the novel, think some (certainly not all) of those were quite smart for the adaptation, and one I see as a clear homage to how the novel dealt with it.

But to rather touch on changes in general there is one theme of changes, which includes a couple of often maligned ones, that I think PJ was very smart to make and that was changing some of the instances where the power of the Ring is undercut. As said, I love the novel, but I think the films probably has a more consistent presentation of the Ring's danger and I think that was even more important when the story is told much more quickly (which is funny to say for a trilogy that's almost 11.5 hours).

It's amusing to hear that the purists are still going on Reddit. The LotR adaptation were the first films that I ever followed the production for and I followed online discussions from the announcement all the way through the discussions of the released films. I vividly remember how many fans that just couldn't accept a single change, no matter how small, and that actually helped me learn to deal with adaptations in a more constructive way than I had before. That part of the fanbase just felt so unreasonable to me that it was easier to want to look at things from more than one viewpoint, so I do owe them that.

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

Young Aragorn movie incoming.

 

[Filmfreak]

Why can't they make a Silmarillion adaptation or something else from the First Age? I think this could be the only thing that would both make them money and wouldn't feel completely pointless.

 

[InCali]

Why can't they make a Silmarillion adaptation or something else from the First Age? I think this could be the only thing that would both make them money and wouldn't feel completely pointless.

The Tolkien Estate controls the rights to it. The 1st Age, starting with the Ainulindale (The Music of the Ainur), could be awesome. Just keep Peter Jackson away from it. He'd probably add a piano and guitar to make it relevant for today.

 

[InCali]

Young Aragorn movie incoming.

After Rings of Power, any announcement fills me with a sense of dark foreboding. The time from the end of The Hobbit to the beginning of LotR could be interesting if done from the right perspective. I think @DKDetective was on to something when he said that it would be interesting to tell a story from the perspective of Sauron. I would personally do this particular timeframe from the perspective of Elrond as he has a broad interaction with all of the main characters, but the 2nd Age is a different story. In any case, I'd rather they shoot for the moon and try to give a real adaptation than completely screw up timelines, portray people completely out of character, just make stupid S*** up, etc. (And, yes, I'm talking about Rings of Power).

 

[Arachnerd]

The Tolkien Estate controls the rights to it. The 1st Age, starting with the Ainulindale (The Music of the Ainur), could be awesome. Just keep Peter Jackson away from it. He'd probably add a piano and guitar to make it relevant for today.

I highly doubt he'd even want to revisit the franchise considering how much of a clusterf*** of a production the Hobbit was and how miserable he looked in the BTS footage.

 

[InCali]

It's fun seeing your list of extra bad alterations and realize that I, as someone that also loves the novel, think some (certainly not all) of those were quite smart for the adaptation, and one I see as a clear homage to how the novel dealt with it.

But to rather touch on changes in general there is one theme of changes, which includes a couple of often maligned ones, that I think PJ was very smart to make and that was changing some of the instances where the power of the Ring is undercut. As said, I love the novel, but I think the films probably has a more consistent presentation of the Ring's danger and I think that was even more important when the story is told much more quickly (which is funny to say for a trilogy that's almost 11.5 hours).

It's amusing to hear that the purists are still going on Reddit. The LotR adaptation were the first films that I ever followed the production for and I followed online discussions from the announcement all the way through the discussions of the released films. I vividly remember how many fans that just couldn't accept a single change, no matter how small, and that actually helped me learn to deal with adaptations in a more constructive way than I had before. That part of the fanbase just felt so unreasonable to me that it was easier to want to look at things from more than one viewpoint, so I do owe them that.

Those were just the ones right off the top of my head. I can think of quite a few more. Out of curiosity, which do you think were smart and what was the one you really liked? I was rather annoyed when Aragorn just threw down a bunch of swords for the hobbits; maybe as annoyed as I was when the Witch King was slain (but, oooh, was it ever cinematic. LOL).