Amph One Thread To Rule Them All: The Rings of Power + The Hobbit & Lord of the Rings Trilogies

I think the movie strikes a good compromise between the book's version (where it being an appendix item means that Aragorn's wedding to Arwen is this kind of surprise moment that gels a lot of previous hints in the story together, which is then ex post facto fleshed out for people who want more details... or at least that's how I've always read it) and the realities of film where that approach just doesn't work well with the structure of the rest of the series. See also: axing the Scouring. But I suspect any plotting or character quality discussions here are a bit of a red herring in the first place.

 

Christopher Tolkien resigns as Director of Tolkien Estate.

 

I wondered how he was OK with this new Amazon series. I guess it turns out he had retired before this was signed, so he probably doesn't like it but it doesn't matter anymore. Well... there's probably a bunch of mediocre Middle-earth content on the horizon now.

 

Orlando Florida: Middle Earth. No more flying to New Zealand to visit the Shire.

 

I'm sure the timing between Christopher Tolkien resigning and the Amazon series is not just a coincidence but the fella is 91 so he was probably due for retirement anyway.

 

That could very well maybe.mean the silmirlilion could get adaptation to movies and TV shows since he has refuse to sell the rights.

 

Ninja'ed by tom!

So who thinks Kate is too old to play a thousand year old elf?

 

That's (potentially) more complicated as I think he has a direct claim on The Silmarillion via his editorship. That said, IANA(IC)L.

 

There already has been local rumors (completely unsubstantiated) about Universal Studios buying the rights and replacing the rather tepid King Syndicate comics land with it. (I don't doubt that they are looking to pave over Toon Lagoon with something more profitable, but I doubt the LOTR rumors)

 

Regarding rights:

As far as I remember the film rights extended to everything in LotR and The Hobbit, including the appendices (which makes sense since they mined them a lot in the movies). However the big change is the TV rights themselves. Saul Zaentz only ever had feature film rights, so they now have access to an entirely new medium. That's what the estate gave up.

 

Yes, you are correct.

I have now read that the TV rights is the big thing here, they were not included earlier.
Thank you for the info.

I do wonder, the BBC did a radio adaptation a number of years ago.
So those right were sold. And film rights.
Wonder why TV rights were not sold?

Bye for now.
Blackboard Monitor

 

TV simply wasn't as significant a medium at the time. It probably wasn't a matter of consideration.

 

What are the chances the prequel show will be part of Peter Jacksons movie canon?

 

I'd say likely since it has the same money behind it and they probably want to make it look visually in sync with the Jackson films to sell it. And note they aren't saying "The Hobbit!" or "Lord of the Rings!" but "untold stories". But they're probably going to have to recast anyone who would appear in both, aside from maybe a big money cameo in the pilot like Ian McKellen.

Doubt it'll be centred on characters we know but more like Shadow Of games which are original stories in the basically Jackson continuity (but if you squint, it ain't)

 

And if they do that it will be ****. The Shadow Of games can get away with being stupidly lore-averse because the primary desire of the people playing is good gameplay. A film or television watching audience will have a larger overlap with the fanbase of the source material and will have a higher expectation of conformity. If they try to pull off something akin to Celebrimbor's ghost it will have a very negative reaction from the fan community.

The only way they may be able to marry the "lore friendly" and "newcomer/casual viewer friendly" ideals is if they try something like the later HP films. They deviated from the source material but respected them and hit the major beats, and were more or less well-received. That might work.

 

Honestly, I have no problems with the Shadow Of... series when it comes to lore. The contradictions are usually minor timeline shifts so that certain events can be included in the games, or adding in new lore to areas where there was none (though I can see why the latter would be a problem for some).

As for Celebrimbor, well he's the best character in the games, so I have no complaints with him.

 

Those games seem distinctly un-Tolkien to me. They're precisely the sort of thing that Christopher Tolkien was protecting his father's legacy from becoming.

 

Christopher tolkien thought all six of peter Jackson movies where not faithful. Tolkien estate is now included in the prequel show and other future projects. But some fans will not find the new project materials faithful regardless how the makers try or how good or bad it comes to turn out. I have faith that it is going to be awesome. I pray I am going to be right.

 

Leaving aside the obvious issues with the Hobbit movies, he wasn't really wrong in many ways regarding LotR. One can argue on the merits of many of the changes, and it's hard to argue against the quality of the final product, but there were significant deviations with characters like Frodo, Aragorn, Gimli, Denethor, Faramir, etc. I could certainly argue that Gimli and Denethor at least were damaged by their portrayals, at least compared to the book, regardless of the high quality of the actors' performances. An argument can also be made that the Scouring of the Shire was one of the most thematically important parts of the work and it was almost entirely extracted (though I personally think for good cause). There are many other less significant changes, some that I regret (e.g. Saruman the Many-Coloured) and some that I don't (e.g. Frodo being more directly part of the Ring's destruction).

Truly though I think Christopher is too close to the material and could unfortunately never creatively divorce himself from the works the way his father seemed to be able to at times. I suppose while they weren't quite his baby he was their guardian and adoptive parent, and he was in charge of them for about the same amount of time that his father was, so it's understandable. And honestly in the end it is hard for me to really criticize the man mainly responsible for overseeing the compilation, edit, and publication of my favorite book of all time and who has shepherded an incredible amount of material to the public.

 

yeah, i think most of the changes made in the lotr films were pretty much made for "cinematic reasons". that is to say that they were made because they didn't think something would "play well on screen", for obvious time constraint reasons, or in order to appeal to a modern diverse audience. when seen in that light, it's hard to really fault them for the changes. they were judgment calls that they knew would be sometimes controversial and ultimately they mostly worked. the movies were widely praised, jackson won a bunch of oscars, etc. i do enjoy the films, and i think they are a pretty remarkable achievement.

but for me, i had read the trilogy just about every year since i was 8. and though i can see the logic behind the changes, i find pretty much all of them annoying. i just wish they would have tried to do it straight. they obviously would have still had to cut things for time and yes, tolkien's the lord of the rings does make some much crazier narrative choices, but it wouldn't have ruined anything. if faramir was exactly the character from the books it wouldn't have suddenly been a terrible movie. to me, jackson's midddle-earth just lacks some of the cool mystery and depth of tolkien's world. faramir not being tempted by the ring was cool and mysterious. the only other person who wasn't tempted by the ring was tom bombadil, who was also super cool and mysterious and definitely should have been in the movie! ramza posted (or re-posted) something recently about how cutting tom bombadil out of the lord of the rings is missing what tolkien is all about, and while i think it was said kind of tongue in cheek i also think there is a ton of truth in that. having an ancient elf lord called glorfindel show up out of nowhere and save the day is pretty out-of-left-field narrative decision, but it also added a depth and sense of history to this huge and ancient world that exists outside of the travels of these nine guys. those were the kinds of moments that tended to be removed for cinematic reasons, mostly they would have been really cool moments for giant tolkien nerds like myself.

i understand why they did it the way they did. no one needs to come at me defending arwen at the ford, i get why they did it and it's a good scene. great acting by liv tyler, showing that elves are capable of this tremendous compassion for people they've only just met, which is another kind of cool and mysterious thing. jackson's films do have that, i like them, i just wish they had tried it the way tolkien wrote it just so i could have seen it. i don't even want to talk about the hobbit films, jackson just lost his mind with those.

 

Overall I agree with you except on one point:

Let me preface this by saying I love Tom Bombadil, precisely because he is so mysterious. One of my favorite fan pastimes is theorizing about his nature (also Ungoliant's, and who the Witch-King is; things we will never know for certain but can make some decent guesses about). You are right in that he is kind of "what Tolkien was all about." He explicitly stated in his letters that some things in real mythology are obscured through time and lost record, and Tom is meant to be an example of that in his own mythology and was deliberately obscured (though he teased that maybe he actually does have some idea of who or what he really is, which IMO is just kind of a mean thing to insinuate ). I have gotten into good arguments and conversations about this topic and I love it.

But while the purpose of Tolkien's work as a whole was to create a modern mythology with all that that entails, that was not the purpose of the movies. The movies did their best to be thematically faithful in many ways even when they weren't plot faithful, and that certainly improved them, but in the end the goal of Jackson and co. was simply to tell a very good story on film. They respected the work they adapted and paid homage to that history at times (especially in extended scenes like the Lay of Leithian and talking about the Entwives) but if their goal was going to be to uphold that mythological and historical weight it would have had to be a vastly different movie.

That in mind, it's hard to say that Tom fits. He's a great character, but his entire sequence drives the plot to a halt and the only thing of consequence (receiving the Barrow blades) could easily have been handled differently (and it was, in a couple of shots; though admittedly this change does bring implications for the final fight against the Witch-King). More importantly than this, though, his character and nature doesn't fit tonally with the rest of the movie, and it would be a crime to change him of all characters. So overall I do not regret his absence.

This isn't defending changes generally. This is just pointing out that certain things had to be handled differently to work, and Tom is probably the most prominent example.

On Glorfindel, though, I would actually love to have him in the movie. I don't think a character should have to remain for the rest of the story after being introduced, and he's easily one of the most badass characters in the entire Legendarium with some mystery of his own. While Arwen was great it would have been very interesting to see how they would have handled him.

 

What is this supposed to point out? That's how thresholds work.

Once you go beyond a certain point it doesn't matter how far you go.

 

More details about the schedule for the production and release of the new series:
http://www.theonering.net/torwp/201...le-earth-series-to-shoot-in-2019-air-in-2020/

And some more thoughts (some of which we've already discussed here) about the time period and content the series could cover:
http://www.theonering.net/torwp/201...the-rings-series-not-so-mysterious-after-all/

 

I knew middle earth was coming back after the hobbit trilogy was done sooner or later. This is awsome news. I am pleased that the tolkien estate is involved.