Some questions

[yovargas]

L. Which scenario for future film adaptations do you consider most likely to happen in the near future (10-20 years)?
1. A remake of “The Hobbit”/”The Lord of the Rings”
2. A spinoff film set in the Third Age, which concerns for ex. Aragorn or Earl?
3. A Silmarillion film?
4. A TV series

I consider all extremely unlikely. I fully expect we'll be done with filmed Middle-Earth for quite a long time.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I am consistently baffled at why people don't think remakes of LOTR are likely in the next two-three decades. These films made loads and loads of money, and have a built-in, automatically seeing the film three times fanbase.

They will be remade! No wishful thinking here.

[Túrin Turambar]

I am consistently baffled at why people don't think remakes of LOTR are likely in the next two-three decades. These films made loads and loads of money, and have a built-in, automatically seeing the film three times fanbase.

They will be remade! No wishful thinking here.

The source material is still subject to fairly complex copyright arrangements, the Jackson/New Line films were a huge success and set the bar very high, and re-making the Trilogy would be a huge undertaking. Very successful books have been adapted to films that flopped at the box office in the past (The Golden Compass), as have remakes of very successful films (Wicker Man, Psycho, etc). I expect someone will try again, but not for a while. Once the copyright expires on the books, though, I expect we'll see some...interesting...things at the cinema.

[yovargas]

I am consistently baffled at why people don't think remakes of LOTR are likely in the next two-three decades. These films made loads and loads of money, and have a built-in, automatically seeing the film three times fanbase.

They will be remade! No wishful thinking here.

Well, the original statement was 10-20 years not two-three decades. I could see it in 20+ but even then I doubt it. Hollywood (thankfully) tends to wait a long to before they choose to remake movies that are considered classics and major successes. You don't lightly re-try a story that becomes a cultural landmark. Plus it's just a really giant undertaking and I think there's a general sense that the ~20 hours of Middle-Earth we're getting from PJ is just enough already. Enough!

[Passdagas the Brown]

Interestingly, I think the critical and commercial success of shows like Game of Thrones has called into question the quality of the LOTR films for a lot of people. IMO, this makes it more likely that someone will attempt a remake - either in film or television form.

I really hope so, anyway...

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Until a couple of months ago, I would have said that it was unlikely that there would be a remake any time soon, because I don't think that Saul Zaentz would have granted a further license, and I don't think it could be done before the current license held by NL/WB expires. But with Zaentz's death, it is less clear what will happen.

[Smaug's voice]

J. When reading “The Quest of Erebor” in my copy of the Annotated Hobbit recently, I came to the conclusion that this Thorin reminded me more of film-Thorin than the Thorin from the Hobbit-book. Am I the only one who thinks so?

Me too. I personally find the dwarves from the film much closer to the grim, calculative and proud Naugrim than the bumbling figures from the book.
That is to say, if I manage to ignore half of the film-dwarves - who are still bumbling comic figures.

K.Which places you have come across in your life have reminded you the most of certain locations in Middle-earth?

Quite a few.
Not many good pics though.

L.Which scenario for future film adaptations do you consider most likely to happen in the near future (10-20 years)?
1. A remake of “The Hobbit”/”The Lord of the Rings”
2. A spinoff film set in the Third Age, which concerns for ex. Aragorn or Earl?
3. A Silmarillion film?
4. A TV series

1. A Hobbit remake is fully possible and I believe someone would or SHOULD try it within the next 20 years. I'd love to see a faithful version of the book.
LotR has no chances for a remake, however, in atleast 50-60 years. Unless someone tries an animated series - which I would like too.

2.Highly unlikely at present. But once the copyright of the book is off, it'll happen surely.

3. Not possible as a film, unless someone green-lights a six-film series.
It'd be a miracle, but I think PJ's tale from getting the rights to collaborating with Tolkien experts and finally putting up a finished product, isn't far from a miracle.

4. Most likely for Silmarillion. Though animation is the most obvious way to go, given budgetary limits.

[Beutlin]

Interestingly, I think the critical and commercial success of shows like Game of Thrones has called into question the quality of the LOTR films for a lot of people.

Which people? I have heard of no widespread criticism concerning the "Lord of the Rings" film trilogy in recent times, and certainly not in the wake of “Game of Thrones”. And if there has been criticism by “Game of Thrones” fans it was labelled at the source material. Whereas Tolkien is black and white escapism “GoT” is an exciting fantasy take on our human nature. Or so they think. But to say that many people watching “GoT” for the last years have come to the conclusion that Peter Jackson did a bad job is pure wishful thinking on your behalf.

And again, among high-profile film critics “The Sopranos” or “The Wire” is praised way more than “Game of Thrones”. My father, who is a huge cineaste, will not even look at “Game of Thrones” twice, purely because it is fantasy.

I think the most challenging aspect for a remake of “The Lord of the Rings” is that Peter Jackson, no matter what you think of his films, executed some iconic scenes from the book perfectly: Gandalf on the bridge of Khazâd-dûm comes to mind for instance.

Personally I think, the most interesting scenario for Tolkien fans is an adaptation of a story from “The Silmarillion”. Not by Peter Jackson of course, but by someone entirely different in 20 or 30 years. That is of course, if the Tolkien Estate allows it. A story from "The Silmarillion" would (and should) be vastly different from the earlier Tolkien films. In other words: The director could develop his/her own unique vision of Middle-earth/Beleriand, set apart from Peter Jackson’s New Zealand. Think about it: A Tolkien film without hobbits!

[Beutlin]

Nice picture of Monterey Bay/Tol Eressëa, Voronwë. I always pictured Newfoundland as Tol Eressëa.

[anthriel]

Interestingly, I think the critical and commercial success of shows like Game of Thrones has called into question the quality of the LOTR films for a lot of people. IMO, this makes it more likely that someone will attempt a remake - either in film or television form.

I really hope so, anyway...

An interesting statement, PtB. I had not read that particular observation anywhere, and would be interested in seeing whatever it was that you saw.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Oh, I've read that observation LOTS of times. Of course, they all have been written by PtB, so perhaps that doesn't really count.

[Smaug's voice]

Interestingly, I think the critical and commercial success
of shows like Game of Thrones has called into question the
quality of the LOTR films for a lot of people. IMO, this makes it more
likely that someone will attempt a remake - either in film or television
form.

I really hope so, anyway...

The only major complaint I have heard from GOT fans is the lack of realism, the absence of gritty realism and raw violence in battles. I do not think even the truest Tolkien adaptation could alter that.

Not to mention the most general consensus of the trilogy being "people walking for three films to drop a ring into a mountain" - action packed as Jackson's attempt was, one can only guess what the consensus will be then.

[anthriel]

Oh, I've read that observation LOTS of times. Of course, they all have been written by PtB, so perhaps that doesn't really count.

[Passdagas the Brown]

People like straw men, I see. Note that I said "for a lot of people," not "for critics." It's all anecdotal, as no one will pay me to conduct a study on the subject, but I see comments to that effect in a lot of places online where people discuss TV and film (SV has seen some of it, but the "LOTR used to be my favorite fantasy film, but GoT destroys it in terms of writing and directing" sentiment seems quite common among watchers of GoT who post on various sites). So the answer to "which people?" is "a number of GoT TV show fans who post online." That's flimsy support for my assertion, but it's certainly not just me who's recognized the high quality writing and directing in GoT compared to TH and LOTR. Though of course Voronwë has only seen me say it, as it's not likely he ventures far outside HoF to solicit opinions about GoT! I mean, if I posted on a GoT forum that I'd never seen anyone say that the LOTR films were of higher quality than GoT, you could legitimately question whether or not I'd ventured outside GoT fandom...

On GoT's critical reception, I disagree strongly based on the facts. The praise GoT gets, especially the praise for the writing, from a very broad range of high-profile critics is extraordinary - very close to the level of praise "The Wire," "Sopranos," and "Breaking Bad" have received. While there may be a few curmudgeonly "anti-fantasy" holdouts, critics have largely shed that bias and recognized the show's significant artistic merit. It's mostly those who refuse to watch it that have tended towards strong negativity (such as most of the people here who open-mindedly refuse to even consider watching it). I find this strange, particularly as someone who is often frustrated by people who refuse - on unshakeable principle - to even peer behind the cover of a Tolkien book. Why treat other fantasy the same way? (Even though I maintain that the LOTR books, and all Tolkien's work, is vastly superior to GRRM, IMO). I suppose I cannot understand the arrogance of disliking something without finding out for oneself what that something is!

Back to comparisons. For me, who's watched every episode of GoT thus far, it's clear. Benioff and Weiss, both possessors of PhDs in literature from Trinity College, Cambridge (and experts in Beckett and Joyce), are infinitely better writers than PB and J. Even some of the smallest and least significant scenes in GoT are masterpieces of dialogue and adaptation compared to PB and J's clunky "characters melodramatically spew exposition at each other" style.

I appreciated bits and pieces of PJ's films. But Tolkien deserves far, far better, IMO, and I hope a better crew of writers and directors try their hand at LOTR and TH before I croak!

And on GOT, please read and/or watch the darned things before passing judgment! I know some of you have, but for others, it's simply impossible to have a meaningful conversation about the relative merits of LOTR/TH and GoT if you haven't seen the latter.

[Smaug's voice]

I think this makes a good Misty Mountains.

Landour

And the plains of Rohan

Shola grasslands

Anduin and Parth Galen.

AP

Rauros

Kodaikanal

[anthriel]

People like straw men, I see.

Note that I said "for a lot of people," not "for critics." It's all anecdotal, as no one will pay me to conduct a study on the subject, but I see comments to that effect in a lot of places online where people discuss TV and film (SV has seen some of it, but the "LOTR used to be my favorite fantasy film, but GoT destroys it in terms of writing and directing" sentiment seems quite common among watchers of GoT who post on various sites). So the answer to "which people?" is "a number of GoT TV show fans who post online."

PtB, please accept my apologies! I was absolutely not challenging the idea that you HAD seen or read such things... I would simply have liked to have read them, too, and that is full stop the truth. I dislike the practice of "I don't agree with you, please provide documentation" which only happens when people are the minority voice. I am so sorry if I (inadvertently) did that to you.

I just like both GoT and LotR, and am interested in anything that has to do with the two of them.

And on GOT, please read and/or watch the darned things before passing judgment! I know some of you have, but for others, it's simply impossible to have a meaningful conversation about the relative merits of LOTR/TH and GoT if you haven't seen the latter.

If you want to start a thread about this, I would love to participate. As long as it is not in Lasto, I'm in!

[anthriel]

There was supposed to be a sad face after that first PtB quote in my last post, btw. Sorry about that.

[Beutlin]

My objection to your first post was that you used weasel words to back up your opinion. Writing “a lot of people” question the quality of the LOTR trilogy due to “GoT” now, is purely anecdotal and cannot be backed up.

I agree that there are GoT fans who criticize the LOTR films, but not so much for their writing and direction, but for their general tone. I think Smaug’s voice has pretty much said the same over the last weeks. Whereas you see the GoT as a better adaptation of a mediocre source material, some GoT fans regard Middle-earth in general as a childish tale of walking munchkins. Where’s the sex? Where are the dubious, morally corrupted characters? Etc.

Oh, and I have seen “Game of Thrones”, so I am not writing about it without knowing it.

@Smaug's Voice: Like the Anduin picture.

[yovargas]

I would also say that my anecdotal experience with GoT vs LOTR critiques isn't "the GoT TV show is a better adaptation than LOTR was" but that "GoT is a better story than LOTR". IOW, I suspect the people who are making the comparison are mostly the same people who are still dismissive of LOTR itself and are never gonna take the story of silly hobbits walking forever very seriously - whereas GoT is a fantasy story that those who still see LOTR as too geeky or childish can get behind.

[Frelga]

Where are the dubious, morally corrupted characters?

Thorin, Denethor, Boromir, Fëanor and Sons, Túrin (for those who think that the incest angle is so daring), etc., etc.

In other words, people who criticize Tolkien's characters for being black-and-white are people who haven't read Tolkien, and don't realize how morally complex, violent, and horror-packed his world actually is.

Back to your regular scheduled programming.