The LOTR TV Serial by Tosh

[Alatar]

I think part of the problem there was that they kep changing the actor for Batman after the first two. Val Kilmer and George Clooney? Really?

[Primula Baggins]

I would love to see LotR get the Game of Thrones treatment—at least in terms of sets, location shooting, special effects—I mean for mass armies and falling towers, not Scrubbing Bubbles(TM)—and quality of writing and acting. And three seasons, for sure. Lots of time for Bombadil and the Scouring.

It could be completely true to Tolkien and still contain enough violence to please the film-only fanboys. It could not contain any on-screen or even implied sex, but really—the classic BBC miniseries Pride and Prejudice was sexy enough that women swooned in swathes, and there was no nudity and not even a kiss until the very end. Cast the right people, and it will hold people's attention.

[yovargas]

I nominate Peter Dinklage for all roles.

[Primula Baggins]

All roles anywhere. He is so impressive.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I think people clamoring for a remake are likely to be sorely disappointed if it does happen. In order for their to be a sufficiently different take to justify a fairly quick reboot, it would either have to be considerably more true to Tolkien, or considerably less. For all of the complaints, by Hollywood standards Jackson's films are quite faithful to the source. A reboot is likely to be much less so.

I would welcome an adaptation that was literally less faithful, but truer to the spirit of Tolkien than PJ's adolescent melodrama. I would even be fine with the excision of certain prominent characters, and plot lines, if it better captured both the themes and tone of the books, and were simply better crafted as films. To me, PJ is a really bad filmmaker, with a poor understanding of good visual and narrative storytelling, and I'd like to see anyone else give it a shot (apart from Bay and Bruckheimer, and a few other hacks...)

I'd welcome a reboot in less than 10 years, to be honest. Not likely to happen, but one can dream.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Agreed, also, which is why I agree with PtB - the next screen version is likely to be a TV production, inspired by the success of the Game of Thrones series. A season per each book - The Hobbit and the 3 LOTR books?

We may need to be careful what we wish for, though. The TV version added sex and violence to GoT, which is already awash in both. Do we want to see a "gritty re-imagining" of Tolkien?

You could easily turn LOTR, the books, into six seasons (one season per "book"). In fact, so much happens in these books, that you could turn them into 7, 8 or 9 seasons, I imagine.

One possibility would be for varying storylines to be explored from the beginning. I can imagine the season(s) focused on FOTR, for example, to feature scenes of Gimli in Erebor, including the arrival of Sauron's threatening emissary, Boromir, Faramir and Denethor in Minas Tirith (including the Isildur's bane dream), Legolas and Thranduil in Mirkwood (including the Gollum imprisonment and escape), Aragorn in the wild, and Gandalf's explorations, capture, escape, and arrival and departure from Rohan.

In later seasons, one could more closely follow the doings in Edoras, Minas Tirith, Dol Amroth, etc.

It would be absolutely imperative to keep the focus on Frodo, Sam, and the Fellowship, but you could easily have a broader exploration of the secondary characters with such a TV treatment.

[yovargas]

One possibility would be for varying storylines to be explored from the beginning. I can imagine the season(s) focused on FOTR, for example, to feature scenes of Gimli in Erebor, including the arrival of Sauron's threatening emissary, Boromir, Faramir and Denethor in Minas Tirith (including the Isildur's bane dream), Legolas and Thranduil in Mirkwood (including the Gollum imprisonment and escape), Aragorn in the wild, and Gandalf's explorations, capture, escape, and arrival and departure from Rohan.

In later seasons, one could more closely follow the doings in Edoras, Minas Tirith, Dol Amroth, etc.

I'm surprised to say that I think that sounds pretty awesome.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think people clamoring for a remake are likely to be sorely disappointed if it does happen. In order for their to be a sufficiently different take to justify a fairly quick reboot, it would either have to be considerably more true to Tolkien, or considerably less. For all of the complaints, by Hollywood standards Jackson's films are quite faithful to the source. A reboot is likely to be much less so.

I would welcome an adaptation that was literally less faithful, but truer to the spirit of Tolkien than PJ's adolescent melodrama. I would even be fine with the excision of certain prominent characters, and plot lines, if it better captured both the themes and tone of the books, and were simply better crafted as films. To me, PJ is a really bad filmmaker, with a poor understanding of good visual and narrative storytelling, and I'd like to see anyone else give it a shot (apart from Bay and Bruckheimer, and a few other hacks...)

I'd welcome a reboot in less than 10 years, to be honest. Not likely to happen, but one can dream.

It would be much more likely that you would get a hack job from someone like Bay or Bruckheimer, or an unrecognizable film like Boorman's abomination of a script (or the one film version that Miramax was planning to do with John Madden at the helm, after negotiations with Jackson had broken down, and before Jackson was able to get New Line on board).

PtB, your statement that Jackson is "a really bad filmmaker" is really just a way of saying that his style is not to your taste. Making such a ridiculously over-the-top statement makes the rest of your very excellent commentary less credible.

In my opinion, of course.

[yovargas]

It's fair to say he may not be great but to say he's a really bad filmmaker makes me think you need to see more really bad films.

[Frelga]

One possibility would be for varying storylines to be explored from the beginning. I can imagine the season(s) focused on FOTR, for example, to feature scenes of Gimli in Erebor, including the arrival of Sauron's threatening emissary, Boromir, Faramir and Denethor in Minas Tirith (including the Isildur's bane dream), Legolas and Thranduil in Mirkwood (including the Gollum imprisonment and escape), Aragorn in the wild, and Gandalf's explorations, capture, escape, and arrival and departure from Rohan.

In later seasons, one could more closely follow the doings in Edoras, Minas Tirith, Dol Amroth, etc.

I'm surprised to say that I think that sounds pretty awesome.

I want to watch this so badly!

[Passdagas the Brown]

I think people clamoring for a remake are likely to be sorely disappointed if it does happen. In order for their to be a sufficiently different take to justify a fairly quick reboot, it would either have to be considerably more true to Tolkien, or considerably less. For all of the complaints, by Hollywood standards Jackson's films are quite faithful to the source. A reboot is likely to be much less so.

I would welcome an adaptation that was literally less faithful, but truer to the spirit of Tolkien than PJ's adolescent melodrama. I would even be fine with the excision of certain prominent characters, and plot lines, if it better captured both the themes and tone of the books, and were simply better crafted as films. To me, PJ is a really bad filmmaker, with a poor understanding of good visual and narrative storytelling, and I'd like to see anyone else give it a shot (apart from Bay and Bruckheimer, and a few other hacks...)

I'd welcome a reboot in less than 10 years, to be honest. Not likely to happen, but one can dream.

It would be much more likely that you would get a hack job from someone like Bay or Bruckheimer, or an unrecognizable film like Boorman's abomination of a script (or the one film version that Miramax was planning to do with John Madden at the helm, after negotiations with Jackson had broken down, and before Jackson was able to get New Line on board).

PtB, your statement that Jackson is "a really bad filmmaker" is really just a way of saying that his style is not to your taste. Making such a ridiculously over-the-top statement makes the rest of your very excellent commentary less credible.

In my opinion, of course.

I never understood how an opinion about art (or an artist) could be considered over the top. Of course this is subjective, and of course we are talking about non-quantifiable assessments. That is a given. I think he is both heavy-handed and a poor storyteller (on the level of character, story and visuals), and due to that, I find him to be a "bad" filmmaker. That's my opinion - nothing more, and nothing less. If someone else thinks he's a good filmmaker, I cannot dispute that on scientific grounds.

In my mind, a very negative review of PJ's talents is often deemed "over the top" simply because the LOTR films were critically and commercially quite successful. However, as professional film critics since Ebert have moved in a pack towards "judging a film within its genre," not in comparison to "all film," there has been a tendency, I think, to appreciate LOTR as exceptional "fantasy films," which I agree they are in comparison to other fantasy films.

I just don't find them to be good films.

I mean, why can't we expect just as much from a fantasy movie, than we do about a film about Lawrence of Arabia?

In that context, I personally reject the critical consensus about the LOTR films, and PJ's talent in producing those films, and find him to be a bad film-maker.

Not to mention that I have never heard him once say something intelligent about the source material. Richard Armitage has been far, far more interesting to listen to than PJ, on that front.

[Passdagas the Brown]

One possibility would be for varying storylines to be explored from the beginning. I can imagine the season(s) focused on FOTR, for example, to feature scenes of Gimli in Erebor, including the arrival of Sauron's threatening emissary, Boromir, Faramir and Denethor in Minas Tirith (including the Isildur's bane dream), Legolas and Thranduil in Mirkwood (including the Gollum imprisonment and escape), Aragorn in the wild, and Gandalf's explorations, capture, escape, and arrival and departure from Rohan.

In later seasons, one could more closely follow the doings in Edoras, Minas Tirith, Dol Amroth, etc.

I'm surprised to say that I think that sounds pretty awesome.

I want to watch this so badly!

See, I am such a better filmmaker than PJ!

[yovargas]

I mean, why can't we expect just as much from a fantasy movie, than we do about a film about Lawrence of Arabia?

I hated Lawrence of Arabia.

[Passdagas the Brown]

One possibility would be for varying storylines to be explored from the beginning. I can imagine the season(s) focused on FOTR, for example, to feature scenes of Gimli in Erebor, including the arrival of Sauron's threatening emissary, Boromir, Faramir and Denethor in Minas Tirith (including the Isildur's bane dream), Legolas and Thranduil in Mirkwood (including the Gollum imprisonment and escape), Aragorn in the wild, and Gandalf's explorations, capture, escape, and arrival and departure from Rohan.

In later seasons, one could more closely follow the doings in Edoras, Minas Tirith, Dol Amroth, etc.

I'm surprised to say that I think that sounds pretty awesome.

I want to watch this so badly!

In a TV treatment, this would also give a writer and director the extraordinary advantage of fleshing out the motivations for the entire Fellowship, who we will spend time with for the entire story.

In the LOTR films, Legolas, Gimli, and Boromir, for example, just show up. They are worried about the vaguely-defined Sauron's rise, touched by Frodo's offer of sacrifice, join the Fellowship death mission, and that's it. There's no strong or satisfying personal connection to these characters, who in the books are full of layers and backstory. A TV series could knock this out of the park, visualizing material discussed in expository sequences in the book, and end the first (or second) season with all of these characters coming together at the Council of Elrond, and deciding to essentially be Middle Earth's martyrs. Would be infinitely more powerful than the "photo op" we got in the film, with Elrond pronouncing to a bunch of people we barely know:

"You shall be, the Fellowship of the Ring!"

Yeah, whoop-de-doo. Or to paraphrase film Pippin: "Who are these people?"

[Passdagas the Brown]

I mean, why can't we expect just as much from a fantasy movie, than we do about a film about Lawrence of Arabia?

I hated Lawrence of Arabia.

yovargas, you have managed to articulate the only opinion about film that is actually illegal.

[Alatar]

In fairness, thats a flaw of the book. Can't really blame PJ for that one.

[Passdagas the Brown]

In fairness, thats a flaw of the book. Can't really blame PJ for that one.

Of course you can.

1. In the book, we get extensive dialogue from Gimli, Legolas and Boromir, describing their backstories, and how and why they were motivated to come to Imladris and seek assistance. In this backstory, the threat of Sauron is made real and more global, made personal for the prospective Fellowship members, and thereby builds their characters up to the point that we can now follow their journey with interest for the next two and a half books. In the film, we get none of that.

2. This is a film, not a book. Since we were going to spend lots of time with Gimli and Legolas, and since we needed to care about Boromir's perspective, PJ should have found a visual and narrative way to explain their arrival, their interest in the Ring, their interest in combating Sauron, and their passion for the fellowship's mission. As I said above, the material was there in the text to draw from. Unfortunately, that material was treated by PB and J as just "too much exposition," and excised. They could have thought of it as potentially thrilling character-building material.

3. PJ is often praised when he creatively adapts the books, yet Tolkien is blamed when PJ doesn't creatively adapt the books. I wonder why that is? Is it not PJ's job to compellingly adapt Tolkien for the silver screen?

If something doesn't work in PJ's film, it is his fault alone. If something works in PJ's films, he gets the credit too. Tolkien bears no responsibility for PJ's artistic decision.

IMO, PJ could have done wonders fleshing out Gimli, Legolas and Boromir, at the possible expense of a few minutes of action (shave a bit in Moria), and perhaps a little less dragging in Lothlórien (which I found was adapted in a very wooden and non-compelling fashion).

This would all be much easier with a TV adaptation, but I still think it could have been better done in the films, if different choices were made.

Alternatively, if you can't properly flesh out Legolas and Gimli, simply leave them out of the film! In the grand scheme of the story, they are not particularly important.

Tolkien, in a letter, seemed to feel this way. If you can't do it well, don't do it. He was even open to the wholesale excision of the Helm's Deep battle.

[kzer_za]

In the book, we see Legolas and Gimli repeatedly sniping at and arguing with each other through most of book II (some of it is actually pretty funny). Then as they leave Lothlórien, Tolkien says "they had become fast friends."

At this point, I don't think we've really seen them interacting since just before entering Lothlórien, when they were still bickering. Now their relationship has abruptly shifted to best friends. I know Lórien made Gimli warm up to elves in general, but it's still quite sudden. This stuck out as a bit of a problem on my last re-read. It should have been a little more gradual.

There were definitely problems with both Legolas's and Gimli's portrayals in the movies, at least post-Fellowship. And I would have to see more of how they grow to admire each other's cultures. But we do see their relationship develop and evolve more organically over time, though the end point is not as mature as in the books.

[Passdagas the Brown]

In the book, we see Legolas and Gimli repeatedly sniping at and arguing with each other through most of book II (some of it is actually pretty funny). Then as they leave Lothlórien, Tolkien says "they had become fast friends." At this point, I don't think we've really seen them interacting since just before entering Lothlórien, when they were still bickering. Now their relationship has abruptly shifted to "fast friends." I know Lórien made Gimli warm up to elves in general, but it's still quite sudden. This stuck out as a bit of a problem on my last re-read.

There were definitely problems with both Legolas's and Gimli's portrayals in the movies, at least post-Fellowship. And I would have to see more of how they grow to admire each other's cultures. But we do see their relationship evolve more organically over time, even if the end point is not as mature as in the books.

Right - and it is PJ's job as a filmmaker to visualize them becoming "fast friends." Given the heroic style of Tolkien's non-hobbit characters, for me this sort of thing works quite well in the books. It is internally consistent. In film, these shortcuts are much harder to pull off. You either need to flesh it out, excise it, or create a visual alternative that makes a powerful impression very quickly.

But, before getting to the development of Legolas and Gimli, and their evolving friendship, one has to establish some of their personal motivations for being on the journey in the first place. Or at the very least, explain how they came to all just show up in Rivendell! That simply does not exist in the film-verse.

Yes, we have an existential crisis facing Middle Earth, and that should be reason enough to join a quest like this one. But why these nine walkers? What about their personal history made them particularly keen, or well-suited, for this adventure?

In a narrative, establishing a character is just as important as developing that character. PJ, in my mind, did a very poor job of this (ditto with Merry and Pippin).

[kzer_za]

By the way, speaking of Lawrence of Arabia, I get to see it on the big screen this weekend!