Upcoming movie to take fans on an unexpected journey through time in telling the story of Sméagol.

A new Spy Report collaboration with Knight Edge Media brings what looks like a leaked, possibly official, synopsis for the upcoming feature film The Lord of the Rings: The Hunt for Gollum. While we cannot absolutely verify if it’s a “final” version, the story points hinted at align with previous rumors, leaks, casting auditions, and even things Ian Mckellen has said.

TheOneRing.net reached out to WB for comment or confirmation, but they had nothing to share at this time; nor had anyone in New Zealand.

Film Synopsis
Here is the full text as sent to us via spy report. Reminder, you can drop us inside info (or casual info!) to spymaster ~at~ theonering.net

Quote

My best guess is that the film is mostly set in the interval between Bilbo's birthday and the Fellowship entering Moria with a prologue (or flashbacks) exploring Smeagol's past. Other flashbacks might trace Gollum's travels in search of Bilbo and the Ring.

I suspect that the young age in the casting call for Aragorn might be connected to possible future film projects, specifically one or more movies exploring his previous journeys and errantries (Third Age 2957 to 2980 and perhaps beyond in the continuity of Tolkien's legendarium).

There are two arguments here and we need to clearly delineate them:

That - not being an adaptation of a novel - it will have that uncanny "arsatz Tolkien" feel that stuff like Rings of Power has. Now THAT'S a very reasonable concern - even though Gollum relies on more material than people think and is a single film, not a 42+ hour show - but it hardly circumscribes the project. But either way it is a DIFFERENT argument from...

Saying that these writers are not good enough to write well without having Tolkien as guard-rails. That's an argument that can really only be said by people with a superficial knowledge of their oeuvre. They had no problem almost winning an Oscar for an ORIGINAL screenplay for Heavenly Creatures, to name just one examples. They had their ups and downs - who doesn't? - but they're great writers.

I just think it's always cause for excitement to see the same core creatives come back to "their" film series. Jackson and Weiner as producers, de Luca and Kamins as executive producers, Walsh and Boyens as writers, Serkis and Wood as actors, but also Dan Hennah as production designer, Alan Lee and John Howe as concept artists, etc...That will never not be exciting, at least to me. What other film series of this scope has this degree of involvement from so many of the same people so far down the line? It's a uniquely Herculean achievement.

Ontop of that, I just find it Romantic that filmmakers can, all this time later, come back to an idea that had been percolating since the earliest conceptual phases of the project (circa early 1997). If we had no trouble being excited for the bridge film in 2006-2009, then I see no reason to not see that excitement revived today. Stories are plot, but they're also structure and the idea of putting some extra adhesive between the end of The Battle of the Five Armies and the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring is not an unappealing concept, especially now that we have the symmetry of two trilogies.

In Reply To

You see, you'd think that would be the bulk of the movie - and it may well be! - but then:

The Hunt for Gollum very much evolved out of the "bridge film" concept, which explicitly included the Hunt for Gollum as a plotline (see also this comment by Philippa Boyens).

Focusing more on the period between the trilogies fits with a more Gollum-centric vision for this film, which on balance seems to be the direction they're taking, at least consciously.

Focusing on this period is also more familiar territory in the sense that it's easier for the filmmakers to ressurect Dale (still ruled by Bard at the time that Gollum gets there) and the Woodland Realm, from just a decade age.

Any number of interviews from the creatives point in that director. Most notably, this interview of Andy's - from pretty far down the line in terms of the development of the script - where he CORRECTS the reporter who suggests the film is "set sometime in the Fellowship [era]" and instead says it sits "between losing the Ring to Bilbo Baggins and The Fellowship of the Ring."

This can also sit nicely with the "Young Strider" thing.

In Reply To

Sure, that's one of basically two options for the second film which seem the likeliest. But I just wonder if they will also have the "Mature" Aragorn (as opposed to "Old Elessar") of Mortensen's for scenes set at the time of Fellowship of the Ring.

The precedent of The Hobbit movie trilogy does not fill me with confidence. I know the main fault lies with the studio for demanding an epic fantasy trilogy on a quick schedule.

I see three likely options for what will likely follow The Hunt for Gollum. 1. A film about the battles in the North (Mirkwood, Lorien, Dale & Erebor) bringing back many actors and characters from the Hobbit films. 2. The Journeys and Errantries of Aragorn as previously discussed. 3. Going farther back in the Third Age to the end of Arthedain and fall of Angmar. Introducing many new characters and situations unfamiliar to movies-only fans.

Whatever the faults of those films may be - and they're very much in the eye of the beholder, and clearly far from fatal given the success of the trilogy, including fairly good reviews - they were things that Peter made as conscious aesthetic choices, not things borne out of a shortage of time, nor out of some (non-existent) studio bugbear pulling the strings.

Whatever the faults of those films may be - and they're very much in the eye of the beholder, and clearly far from fatal given the success of the trilogy, including fairly good reviews - they were things that Peter made as conscious aesthetic choices, not things borne out of a shortage of time, nor out of some (non-existent) studio bugbear pulling the strings.

I just refuse to give into a kind of creative equivalent of cancel culture, whereby when you make one bad film (yes, The Hobbit is three entries but they're cut from the cloth of one long shoot) in a beloved series, you're bad, will always be bad, and have always been "secretly" bad and your successes have to be explained away. Just because one didn't like The Hobbit doesn't mean Peter and Andy can't spin something more like Lord of the Rings out of this.

You can't convince me that the decision to make a short book into three long movies was made on artistic rather than commercial grounds.

...The choice of Gollum as a main character is the detail that dooms the effort in my opinion...

In Reply To

We'll know later about Gollum, but for now "The Last Jedi" could just as well have been titled "The Hunt for Luke." Gollum can be a MacGuffin with limited screen time. We don't know. Do you? This could be a Paper Tiger argument in retrospect. Or not?

"The Last Jedi" was indeed doomed, but not because Luke was the main character. But probably because he wasn't. Heh!

The writing was very much on the wall for a long time: Early on, Guillermo del Toro said it "really is barely containable into two movies." Mike Mignola, whom del Toro later invited to pitch in on the movie, said: "wow, it looks like a 16 hour, insane movie, there's so much in it. It's too early for me to tell how much stuff is going to get paired down." He estimated it would take 370 days to shoot!

Then, when Peter took over and they did a schedule, he was taken aback to find that what they scripted would take 250 days to shoot: not far off of the 274 days principal photography on The Lord of the Rings ultimately took. Throughout the production, actors constantly joked that scene 88, to name just one example, could constitute a third film.

Whatever failings one attributes to the films, they are Peter's choices alltogether. When you're the director of The Lord of the Rings, you don't get bossed around by studio executives, and least of all by somebody like Toby Emmerich, who worked with Peter on Rings and was generally very sympathetic. Soon after The Hobbit, Peter chose to bring his WWI documentary to Emmerich.

Anyway, I decided to write my own version of how I would handle The Hunt for Gollum. It is just a rough treatment written quickly, as polishing and getting into detail would be extraordinarily pointless in this case.

I used the following rules:
1. The movie is a feature-length fantasy epic titled The Hunt for Gollum.
2. The movie covers the events involving the hunt for Gollum after Bilbo's birthday party.
3. I am not trying to predict the course of the Serkis movie.
4. Compatibility with The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings trilogies will be maintained.

Here is the plot:

Gandalf researches the history of the One Ring in Minas Tirith and wants to keep the purpose of his research secret even from Denethor who feigns disinterest, but someone has Gandalf under surveillance. Who could it be?

Gandalf makes contact with Aragorn. Aragorn agrees to hunt for Gollum. But someone was listening in secret and overheard their conversation.

Aragorn asks around about rumors of a strange creature that has been stealing from farms and has even threatened babies in their cribs. Aragorn catches Gollum's trail and tracks him down carefully. Aragorn catches Gollum after some failed attempts. Aragorn starts to bring Gollum to Gandalf, but then a large number of Gondorian soldiers appear.. They had also been hunting Gollum and are led by Faramir. Denethor had learned of Gandalf's plans and wants to capture Gollum and take him to Gondor. Denethor has figured out that Gollum has something to do with the One Ring.

Aragorn doesn't want to give up Gollum to Denethor. Gollum takes advantage of everyone being distracted and escapes from Aragorn and the soldiers.

Sauron has noticed Gondor's strange troop movements and sends many of his own troops as a response to this strange provocation. Cue fighting. The Gondorians do pretty well but also take significant losses. Faramir comments that Gondor will rue these losses in the future. Boromir comes with reinforcements to help his little brother. Meanwhile Aragorn continues hunting Gollum while dispatching random Orc patrols. Eventually Aragorn catches Gollum again near Mirkwood.

Aragorn takes Gollum to Mirkwood. Gandalf interrogates Gollum in a scene that isn't shown because we must maintain Gandalf's image as a kind and righteous person. Gandalf departs in a hurry to the Shire. A spy from Mordor watches him leave. Denethor calls Faramir a failure. At the very end, Gollum escapes again.

1. Gandalf should recruit Aragorn before traveling to Gondor, not only because this is what happens in the book but because of the time crunch in the films. We don't have 17 years to work with but, hypothetically, about a year or so.

2. The Gondorian plot with Denethor seems like the kind of insert that has been often decried in the Peter Jackson films. We should probably be privy to Gaollum's first encounter with Shelob and show how he survived it. This would have to take place before his capture by the servants of Sauron.

3. Sauron might track Gollum's movements using the Ithil-stone, hoping that the creature will lead him to the Shire. Thus he learns of Gollum's capture by Aragorn and dispatches a force of Orcs to Mirkwood. The leader of this Orc force would be a secondary villain in the film.

4. I would include Gandalf's interrogation of Gollum. It doen't have to be as harsh as implied above.

This isn't a book purist version. A book purist version would be impossible within the constraints given. I myself was never much of a purist in any case, even if you might think otherwise based on my comments about The Hobbit movies.

I should probably have mentioned it in the outline, but in this version Gandalf doesn't need to go to Bree or Rivendell to hire Aragorn but somewhere much closer to the White Tower. It would probably be the best choice to have Gandalf meeting Aragorn in an inn in Minas Tirith where he happened to be visiting on his travels. Gandalf can then go straight back to the archives and research the Ring some more.

Aragorn not being welcome in Minas Tirith and having "chosen exile" would be something that happens because of the events in this movie. This is the consequence Aragorn bears for refusing to give up Gollum. You may have noticed that I'm using the movie versions of the characters here, including Aragorn and especially Denethor whose vastly more competent and sensible book self would never have gotten so many of his soldiers killed in a failed attempt to capture Gollum.

In my version Gandalf doesn't hire Aragorn "just in case" but because Gandalf is already starting to feel urgent based on his research but hasn't yet read the part about fire having the power to reveal the One Ring and so needs to have some other way of making sure that Gollum's ring really could have been the One Ring. This increases the stakes of the movie.

Gandalf would never "hire" Aragorn, that implies some form of payment. They are friends. Gandalf recruits the Ranger in his search for knowledge about Bilbo's Ring. Aragorn agrees out of friendship and in opposition to the Enemy.

Also, the hunt for Gollum has to begin as soon as possible. As I previously stated, we don't have the luxury here of 17 years to play with. Aragorn has to capture Gollum and bring him to the Woodland Realm in less than a year. We need to have the search begin before Gandalf leaves Eriador, even if they start it together. In fact, that could be what brings Aragorn to Gondor, or at least near it.

It is possible that Denethor becomes aware of Aragorn at this time, though it is likely that he already had suspicions. about "Thorongil" ever since the Northron Ranger served his father. However, I don't think we should see the two meet except, perhaps, in a flashback to Aragorn's errantry to the steward Ecthelion; that would seem to contradict what we learn in the previous films.

I don't like your idea of sending out a Gondorian force after Aragorn but I do understand what you're going for. I think that we'll just have to agree to disagree on the subject.