Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Lord of the Rings:
Lotr Reboot

thorinoakenshield
Rivendell


Mar 16 2013, 12:03am

Post #1 of 20 (1192 views)
Shortcut
Lotr Reboot Can't Post

If they were to reboot the LOTR movies, who should direct them? Also, who should play the fellowship?


Eowyn3
Rivendell

Mar 16 2013, 12:59am

Post #2 of 20 (567 views)
Shortcut
I hope that doesn't happen. [In reply to] Can't Post

I would not like to see a different cast playing the fellowship; to me the LOTR is a done deal. I love it the way it is and do not want to see a different version of it.

" He has just as much reason to go to war as you do. Why can he not fight for those he loves?"


sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea

Mar 16 2013, 2:08am

Post #3 of 20 (581 views)
Shortcut
The only way i would be on board for anything like this, [In reply to] Can't Post

is if it were done as an 18-20 hour high-quality miniseries on something like HBO, and only many, many years down the road. Anything else is utterly pointless-- i really hate all this reboot nonsense. Hollywood needs to lose the word reboot from it's collective vocabulary.

Nothing personal, just a pet peeve of mine.


(This post was edited by sauget.diblosio on Mar 16 2013, 2:09am)


DanielLB
Immortal


Mar 16 2013, 8:36am

Post #4 of 20 (543 views)
Shortcut
Now that I can see how The Hobbit is going to play out ... [In reply to] Can't Post

If The Lord of the Rings was ever to be re-made, it must be 6 films - for the main reason that the only way it will be more popular than Jackson's trilogy, is by making it more true to the book. I don't mind if TH feels too stretched.

As for who should direct, I don't know. It shouldn't be re-made in the next 20-30 years. Perhaps the director isn't even born yet!


Barrow-Wight
Rohan

Mar 16 2013, 1:51pm

Post #5 of 20 (506 views)
Shortcut
Miniseries [In reply to] Can't Post

I love the idea of a LOTR Miniseries, but if they ever did make films on LOTR and TH again they should be animated, not cartoony but CGI like that Beowulf movie from 2007


(This post was edited by Barrow-Wight on Mar 16 2013, 1:52pm)


Otaku-sempai
Half-elven


Mar 16 2013, 2:29pm

Post #6 of 20 (487 views)
Shortcut
Um. Perhaps not like 'Beowulf' [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I love the idea of a LOTR Miniseries, but if they ever did make films on LOTR and TH again they should be animated, not cartoony but CGI like that Beowulf movie from 2007



Maybe when CGI improves more. Beowulf just reached the level of looking close enough to human to be creepy--like evil, animated dolls. In this case, less might be more. The stylized computer animation of the later Final Fantasy games looks far more attractive than the creepy CGI of the film Final Fantasy: The Spirits WIthin.

I like the idea of a reboot in the form of a big-budget cable television series, but anything like that shouldn't happen for at least a few more years. I think that there should be at least a generation between the Peter Jackson fiilms and any attempt at a new take on film.

'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring


malickfan
Gondor

Mar 16 2013, 3:22pm

Post #7 of 20 (482 views)
Shortcut
Being British I'd say Ridley Scott [In reply to] Can't Post

...And I'd like to see it remade for the BBC as a moderately priced TV mini series, if it were remade as a film it would just be a remake of PJ's spin on things, not really a closer adapation of the book. A TV series would enable more of the unconventional elements (Tom Bombadil, Talking Eagles, Scouring of the Shire etc) to be brought back in as people wouldn't being expecting a cinematic spin on things, and would allow for the longer timeframes and lessurely pace of the book. I'm also inclined to think the Tolkien estate would be more forthright with giving up the rights to other things if they have closer involvement with a british production.

Why should PJ have monopoly on things? People always get annoyed with Christopher Tolkien limiting the the works that can be adapted so why should we be limited to just one person adapting the works availible? I personally really enjoy the 1978 cartoon version (!) and would ahve liked to see the second part come to fruition.

I personally was a bit dissapointed by The Hobbit AUJ, as I always liked the fact the hobbit was so different in Tone to LOTR and was more excited seeing a new GDT spin on things, than re-entering the world purely on LOTR prequel terms.

‘As they came to the gates Cirdan the Shipwright came forth to greet them. Very tall he was, and his beard was long, and we was grey and old, save that his eyes were keen as stars; and he looked at them and bowed, and said ‘All is now ready.’

Perhaps the most fascinating Individual in Middle Earth



RangerLady23
Lorien

Mar 16 2013, 6:28pm

Post #8 of 20 (453 views)
Shortcut
No reboot for me [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree with the first two posts. I think that the cast that we have is the only ones to be able to do it and that Hollywood has gotten way too carried away with the remake and the reboot. Enough already. Just be happy with the way things are. LOTR is perfect the way it is, starring who it has and directed by who did it. End of story.


Escapist
Gondor


Mar 16 2013, 6:32pm

Post #9 of 20 (449 views)
Shortcut
Maybe in 10 years ... if the sil or CoH doesn't get made somehow ... // [In reply to] Can't Post

 


imin
Valinor


Mar 16 2013, 10:56pm

Post #10 of 20 (433 views)
Shortcut
I prefer the term re-adaptation [In reply to] Can't Post

reboot to me makes me think they are starting up the movie franchise when really you mean someone else's take on M-e right? I dunno reboot just is a horrible word, lol.

I would like them to wait a while - maybe 20+ years for a re-adaptation just so when it comes around it will feel fresh for the general audience and someone who doesn't feel so bound to these movies can have a shot at making something themselves.

I think if it were to be made in a mini series it would have to be by a studio with lots of money - HBO. I don't think the BBC has enough to pull it off (or would take about 10 series to get through it).


swordwhale
Tol Eressea


Mar 17 2013, 6:33am

Post #11 of 20 (436 views)
Shortcut
YES [In reply to] Can't Post

one more reboot and I'm gonna....gonna... boot something....

Go outside and play...


Kendalf
Rohan


Mar 17 2013, 2:54pm

Post #12 of 20 (398 views)
Shortcut
No movie reboot...but TV? [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
If they were to reboot the LOTR movies, who should direct?


They shouldn't and, considering the universally positive critical and fan reception and astronomical amounts of money made, to attempt to do so would just be a lose / lose situation...

Instead, as others have suggested above, the only viable option for a "reboot" (which would be entirely the wrong term) would be an HBO TV series.

Fingers crossed, eh? When their superlative "Game of Thrones" finishes in four or five years' time, maybe they'll cast their eye around for a replacement...and there's only serious contender, right? Wink

PS Ridley Scott's Scott Free Productions could chip in; their "Pillars of the Earth" and "World Without End" have both shown an admirable ambition and competency with epic narratives.

"I have found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay. Small acts of kindness and love."


Kendalf
Rohan


Mar 17 2013, 3:27pm

Post #13 of 20 (401 views)
Shortcut
I'm not convinced Scott's still "got it"... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Being British, I'd say Ridley Scott...And I'd like to see it remade for the BBC as a moderately priced TV mini series


Whilst I'm in full agreement about TV being the only sensible route for a new adaptation, I'm not completely convinced Scott still has the chops for it. His most recent tanglings with the "epic" (the utterly nonsensical "Prometheus" and the lamentable "Robin Hood") have left very, very much to be desired and the one before that (the predictably PC "Kingdom of Heaven") was hamstrung by a woefully misjudged choice of leading man.

His Production Design is unrivalled and his films always look sensational but I'd want a little more than that from a TV Rings.

Me? I'd go for Peter Weir.

"I have found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay. Small acts of kindness and love."


sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea

Mar 17 2013, 3:47pm

Post #14 of 20 (393 views)
Shortcut
Scott's always been spotty. [In reply to] Can't Post

Don't get me wrong, he's made some truly great films. Both Alien and Blade Runner are in my all time top ten. And he's made tons of good films, too numerous to mention. But he's always made stinkers. G.I. Jane, Legend, Hannibal, A Good Year, the aforementioned Robin Hood? All terrible (though i'm sure i'll get a few Legend defenders here).

I don't think he'd be right to direct anything Middle-earth related, but he as a producer, maybe. Some of his TV stuff is pretty good, though a lot of it tends toword style over substance. I'd be happier to see a Hobbit tv mini-series, or three season regular series, be mounted by someone newer, fresher. Someone to oversee the writing and production, while a team of writers and directors tackle individual episodes. Pretty much what HBO has done for forever with Game of Thrones, Sopranos, Band of Brothers, etc.


Kendalf
Rohan


Mar 17 2013, 3:59pm

Post #15 of 20 (393 views)
Shortcut
Scott for Producer? Absolutely. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I don't think he'd be right to direct anything Middle-earth related, but he as a producer, maybe. Some of his TV stuff is pretty good


I'm in 100% agreement here. As I mentioned above, his Scott Free Productions has delivered some of the most ambitious and successful adaptations in recent years.

The ideal's still HBO, though, like you say.

"I have found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay. Small acts of kindness and love."


Macfeast
Rohan


Mar 20 2013, 9:39pm

Post #16 of 20 (370 views)
Shortcut
The way I see it. [In reply to] Can't Post

I like vanilla ice-cream, but that doesn't mean I hate chocolate, and that I will never put anything of its flavor to my lips.

That's my stance on the possibility of a reboot (though, as imin says, re-adaption is probably the better word; It wouldn't be a reboot of PJ's films, it would be another adaption of the books); Liking one thing doesn't have to rule out another. Why limit ourselves to one great cinematic interpretation, when we could possibly have two? I love PJ's interpretation, but I also love other interpretations; LOTRO (the MMO), Rankin/Bass's the Hobbit, random drawings on DeviantArt. I would be equally prepared to love a second live-action filmatisation. Worse case scenario, it's no good, in which case I just ignore it and go back to the interpretations I love.

I think time is the biggest factor here; I'd rather see such a thing happen later, than sooner. The thing I would fear the most about it being done too soon, would be the possibility of "we need to be different" creeping into the production, and being taken to outrageous lengths, even if it actually makes the end-product worse.
Finding the right crew would also be vital, naturally, a crew who would display the same dedication and love towards the project, as PJ and team did.

Ok, so that didn't really answer your question. Sorry about that Tongue


(This post was edited by Macfeast on Mar 20 2013, 9:46pm)


Kendalf
Rohan


Mar 21 2013, 3:01pm

Post #17 of 20 (325 views)
Shortcut
Is a "different" cinematic interpretation even possible? [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
The thing I would fear the most about it being done too soon, would be the possibility of "we need to be different" creeping into the production

Yes, but in what way could it possibly be different? There's no way they can go for more spectacle! How on Earth could you top Jackson's Khazad-dum, Helm's Deep, Minas Tirith, the Pelennor Fields?! Crazy Which means the only way to be different, to be distinct, is to scale it back, not up, and spend more time in the quiet moments, letting the characters and cultures breathe and grow a little more. Which is why TV is the only option, no?

"I have found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay. Small acts of kindness and love."


Macfeast
Rohan


Mar 21 2013, 3:43pm

Post #18 of 20 (329 views)
Shortcut
"And why should your songs be unfit for my hall?" [In reply to] Can't Post

Sorry, just thought the quote fitting Tongue Seriously though, I can see scaling back as being a viable approach (that sounds pretty interesting, actually...now I want to see it Laugh), but I don't understand why that makes TV the only option. Why would less spectacle, and more quiet moments, be unsuitable for film?


(This post was edited by Macfeast on Mar 21 2013, 3:50pm)


sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea

Mar 21 2013, 3:55pm

Post #19 of 20 (309 views)
Shortcut
You would still need to have some spectacle, some epic-ness, [In reply to] Can't Post

but certainly not on the scale of Jackson. What you would be able to do, especially on TV, is to go deeper into story, deeper into character. TV is great for story and, especially, character. Jackson's LotR is all about conflict and resolution. There's little time to really get into character. With television, you could go almost an entire hour just dealing with characters and their interactions. That's what would be the benefit of TV, and that's what i would be interested in if someone were to attempt another adaptation.


Kendalf
Rohan


Mar 21 2013, 4:18pm

Post #20 of 20 (336 views)
Shortcut
Time and money, time and money [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Why would less spectacle, and more quiet moments, be unsuitable for film?



Time constraints and financial concerns, really, don't you think?

In the space of a three-hour film, there's only so much time for the quieter moments when the iconic set-pieces are there too demanding so much of the running-time. Woodland skirmishes, duels, pursuits, confrontations, sieges, battles and exploding mountains all need built up to and realised in sufficient detail for them to be adequately engaging for the audience; its hard to feel anxiety for the safety of your protagonists when the sense of peril isn't substantial enough. When you consider the sheer number of set-pieces in Tolkien's narrative, it's hard to imagine a substantially different balance between "quiet" and "spectacle" than we got back in 2001-03 (particularly in the EEs). Isn't it?

A 10-hour season on TV has far greater potential to alter this balance than a three-hour movie.

And then there's the money. If you're going to make a live-action Lord of the Rings for the cinema, then you're going to need to spend, say, $500 million.
Once you've spent that sum of money, you need to be sure the product has as wide an appeal as possible. Once you've conceded you need as wide an appeal as possible, you need to swing the balance in favour of the casual movie-goer. Once you've swung the balance in favour of the casual movie-goer, you've got fewer quiet moments and more spectacle. Haven't you?

A made-for-TV production would be far less expensive and therefore have nowhere near the same creative pressures on it.

"I have found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay. Small acts of kindness and love."

 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.