|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
painjoiker
Grey Havens
Feb 28 2015, 3:03am
Post #1 of 23
(1693 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I predict the future!
|
Can't Post
|
|
* Before the end of 2016 Warner Bros. will announce a new movie (or movies) set between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.
* The film will be about Legolas and Aragorn's adventure hinted at in the Battle of the Five Armies.
* Peter Jackson will not direct but he will produce and maybe be a creative consultant if he has the time.
* If PJ, Fran and/or Phillipa are involved with the story they will use whatever they can from the books (appendix material, or unfilmed events from the books used to make new scenes with Aragorn and Legolas). If the films have totally new writers it will be purely made up material with little to none inspiration from the books (only from the already established films).
* None of the films will use Silmarillion-material as it is off limits by the Tolkien Estate.
* Orlando Bloom will return as Legolas, but a new actor will play Aragorn.
* Howard Shore will make the music if available.
* Andy Serkis will be involved somehow. Either in front of the camera or behind the camera.
This is my prediction!
Vocalist of the progressive doom rock band Mater Thallium.
(This post was edited by painjoiker on Feb 28 2015, 3:07am)
|
|
|
AshNazg
Gondor
Feb 28 2015, 3:14am
Post #2 of 23
(1567 views)
Shortcut
|
PJ and co. (I think also del Toro?) were planning to make a bridge movie set between The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings way back in the early drafts of the script, so they clearly have ideas.
The problem is what exactly are these ideas? Not much happens between the two trilogies that's of any interest or importance
 You can't make a three hour movie about the capture of Gollum, and anything involving Aragorn will kinda wreck his introduction in LotR, if you watch them in that order.
What would it be about?! I love Middle-earth, but I'm really not interested in seeing an installment that isn't going to tell us anything new or drive the story in any new direction. It's just an unnecessary depiction of stuff that happened, that has no real relation the main plot.
(This post was edited by AshNazg on Feb 28 2015, 3:15am)
|
|
|
Jeffrodo
Bree
Feb 28 2015, 3:36am
Post #3 of 23
(1547 views)
Shortcut
|
I think your comment "not much happens" implies that the books are the sole source of inspiration for any possible new films. They're not. We saw that PJ is willing to invent from scratch plots, characters, etc.
In the Middle Earth movie universe there can be plenty that happens between The Hobbit and LOTR.
|
|
|
QuackingTroll
Valinor
Feb 28 2015, 3:51am
Post #4 of 23
(1536 views)
Shortcut
|
|
There could be, but would it be interesting?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'm not sure anyone is really interested in seeing every random piece of Lord of the Rings trivia shoe-horned into a spin-off film just for the sake of more Middle-earth. The worst parts of The Hobbit were the made-up stuff and the self-referencing, and that's all this film would be. Sure there's stuff like Bain becoming king of Dale and the dwarves reclaiming Moria or whatever else. But is it necessary to see that stuff?
I think there's a reason Tolkien never wrote more stories in or around Lord of the Rings, and that's because there's no enemy - and it's the presence of an enemy that drives the narrative forward. By the end of The Hobbit Sauron is busy gathering strength, it's not until Lord of the Rings' timeline that he starts to really take action. So there'd be no major enemy in another film - which is why Tolkien moved on to concentrating on the distant past when Melkor was the enemy. Without an enemy to overcome you're just creating a list of events.
(This post was edited by QuackingTroll on Feb 28 2015, 3:52am)
|
|
|
AshNazg
Gondor
Feb 28 2015, 3:56am
Post #5 of 23
(1530 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I meant not much happens in the book...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Not much happens in the book, so what would another movie involve? I'm not saying nothing happens, so it will be bad. An original story could be great, it could be amazing. But the problem is getting my attention when, as far as I'm aware, there's not much worth seeing. The only reason I got through The Hobbit movies was because I love the books. There's no reason for me to invest in something just because it's related to the movies.
(This post was edited by AshNazg on Feb 28 2015, 3:59am)
|
|
|
ecthelionsbeard
Lorien
Feb 28 2015, 4:04am
Post #6 of 23
(1526 views)
Shortcut
|
I, too, think something's up. Let's just hope they don't film in 3D. And lets hope they go the more practical route of LOTR.
|
|
|
Moahunter
Rohan
Feb 28 2015, 5:22am
Post #7 of 23
(1504 views)
Shortcut
|
Maybe she travels to break the news to Dis and has lots of encounters en route..
|
|
|
Mooseboy018
Grey Havens
Feb 28 2015, 9:55am
Post #8 of 23
(1408 views)
Shortcut
|
I could actually see that happening though, which scares me...
I'd prefer a reboot/remake/another adaption. Not because I think there needs to be one. But if Warner Bros is going to make more Middle-earth movies, I think it'd be much more interesting to see something like a six film adaption of Lord of the Rings that has stuff like Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire.
That'd be crazy though.
|
|
|
haarp
Rivendell
Feb 28 2015, 11:08am
Post #9 of 23
(1381 views)
Shortcut
|
just don't view the film if you don't want it
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Feb 28 2015, 11:42am
Post #10 of 23
(1371 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't think I could stomach any more of Orlando Bloom
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
…especially not as any major character. He's also much too old (probably at least 40 once/if this thing gets off the ground) to be playing Legolas.
|
|
|
AshNazg
Gondor
Feb 28 2015, 12:40pm
Post #11 of 23
(1340 views)
Shortcut
|
|
They could do an animated TV show...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'd be fine with that, kinda like the Disney TV show spin-offs for Lilo and Stitch, Hercules and Aladdin. Animated Legolas and Aragorn adventures - then their age wouldn't matter and if it sucks it would be easier to ignore.
But making a film would be like getting everything that's bad about The Hobbit and taking it way too far.
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Feb 28 2015, 1:51pm
Post #12 of 23
(1307 views)
Shortcut
|
In an animated version they could even make Legolas and Aragorn look like the LotR versions (more or less). It would be bizarre to have other actors playing both characters, in a non-animated film about a middle part of the story, between the Hobbit and LotR…
I'd be fine with that, kinda like the Disney TV show spin-offs for Lilo and Stitch, Hercules and Aladdin. Animated Legolas and Aragorn adventures - then their age wouldn't matter and if it sucks it would be easier to ignore.
But making a film would be like getting everything that's bad about The Hobbit and taking it way too far.
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Feb 28 2015, 4:15pm
Post #13 of 23
(1218 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You could I spose argue Aragorn's character might be the main basis for the film..
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Not much happens in the book, so what would another movie involve? I'm not saying nothing happens, so it will be bad. An original story could be great, it could be amazing. But the problem is getting my attention when, as far as I'm aware, there's not much worth seeing. The only reason I got through The Hobbit movies was because I love the books. There's no reason for me to invest in something just because it's related to the movies.
I would agree that there doesn't seem to be much in terms of actual events to cover between the two film series that would effectively drive the plot. That said you could argue that the film need not follow the same style as LOTR and the Hobbit where the plot is driven by grand events.
You could potentially have a much tighter drama focused more on a younger Aragorn. Maybe about him learning to accept his legacy or the early romance with Arwen? Such a film wouldn't really need any epic events, maybe some orgs/trolls?
Personally for me though if anything there seemed to be more setup in the Hobbit films for some kind of prequel based on the war with Angmar and theres plenty of material there to drive a LOTR/Hobbit style film. I would certainly enjoy more of Thranduil, theres a lot more use that character could be put to.
(This post was edited by moreorless on Feb 28 2015, 4:17pm)
|
|
|
frodolives
Lorien
Feb 28 2015, 4:22pm
Post #14 of 23
(1224 views)
Shortcut
|
|
As much as I would love that...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
… I don't think we will see any more middle earth films for a while. While the Hobbit films all grossed around $1 billion, they weren't enthusiastically received in the way that was hoped for. I could be wring, but I think it will be a while (unless they want to get the same actors before they grow too old). Hope I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Pandallo
Rivendell
Feb 28 2015, 5:17pm
Post #15 of 23
(1186 views)
Shortcut
|
Because of the George Lucas Syndrome, all prequels are bad prequels to them. Not to mention AUJ may have been a bit slow for their tastes and it colored their perceptions of all the rest of the movies from thereon out.
The box office speaks for itself though. BotFA would have broken 1 Billion were it not for exchange rates.
|
|
|
frodolives
Lorien
Feb 28 2015, 5:39pm
Post #16 of 23
(1170 views)
Shortcut
|
Because of the George Lucas Syndrome, all prequels are bad prequels to them. Not to mention AUJ may have been a bit slow for their tastes and it colored their perceptions of all the rest of the movies from thereon out.
The box office speaks for itself though. BotFA would have broken 1 Billion were it not for exchange rates. There's no question that $1 billion is successful. It's my anecdotal, totally non-scientific, opinion that the films were not received with tremendous enthusiasm by the viewing public. Whenever I mention the films, the reaction is generally lukewarm. Again, just anecdotal.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Feb 28 2015, 5:43pm
Post #17 of 23
(1170 views)
Shortcut
|
But, ignoring that for the sake of argument, provided people liked them enough to keep going back to the cinema and buying the DVDs and downloads, why would studios be dissuaded by the reception?
|
|
|
burrahobbit
Rohan
Feb 28 2015, 8:51pm
Post #18 of 23
(1111 views)
Shortcut
|
So the main things that made the Hobbit trilogy a commercial safe bet, and green-lighted it's huge $500+ million budget were-
*Peter Jackson returning as director after commercial and critical acclaim
*Substantial Tolkien source material
*Key members of the LotR cast returning such as Ian McKellan, Cate Blanchett and Andy Serkis.
*Huge fan expectation, even going so far as for thousands of fans to petition for the adaptation.
Any proposals for further adaptations I think are going to struggle on many, if not all of these fronts. Certainly the amount of source material is very minimal, and nothing like a coherent story. I'm struggling to see why key cast members would be likely to return, when they have more exciting projects on offer.
Finally I really don't see it as being in Jackson's interest, even as a producer. He's now very wealthy and has no pressing commercial reason for more Middle Earth movies. He's also a multi-oscar winning director of many acclaimed films, and can't be happy with the critical reception of The Hobbit.
It seems like now is the ideal time for Jackson to return to smaller movies, and for him to experiment with new films and new fantasy adaptations that could grow into the next big franchise.
There are likely to be big Middle Earth computer games and other spin-offs, but I don't see another huge movie adaptation for a long time.
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Mar 1 2015, 5:58am
Post #19 of 23
(1002 views)
Shortcut
|
So the main things that made the Hobbit trilogy a commercial safe bet, and green-lighted it's huge $500+ million budget were-
*Peter Jackson returning as director after commercial and critical acclaim
*Substantial Tolkien source material
*Key members of the LotR cast returning such as Ian McKellan, Cate Blanchett and Andy Serkis.
*Huge fan expectation, even going so far as for thousands of fans to petition for the adaptation.
Any proposals for further adaptations I think are going to struggle on many, if not all of these fronts. Certainly the amount of source material is very minimal, and nothing like a coherent story. I'm struggling to see why key cast members would be likely to return, when they have more exciting projects on offer.
Finally I really don't see it as being in Jackson's interest, even as a producer. He's now very wealthy and has no pressing commercial reason for more Middle Earth movies. He's also a multi-oscar winning director of many acclaimed films, and can't be happy with the critical reception of The Hobbit.
It seems like now is the ideal time for Jackson to return to smaller movies, and for him to experiment with new films and new fantasy adaptations that could grow into the next big franchise.
There are likely to be big Middle Earth computer games and other spin-offs, but I don't see another huge movie adaptation for a long time.
I can see a few reasons Jackson might want to be involved...
Firstly the choice for more films or not isn't his its the studio's who own the rights so if they deside to make more films I can see Jackson wanting to be involved to some degree as he was originally going to be with the Hobbit.
Secondly I think that partly due to the issues you raised this would be a very different challenge to any Tolkien film he's made thus far. Basically it would be an original script in a Tolkien environment and would also have the potential for a very different kind of style.My guess is part of the reason Jackson agreed to the Hobbit was that it allowed for a different tone to LOTR rather than just going over the same ground, the same could be even more true here.
Lastly I must admit I get the feeling Jackson will struggle to go back to smaller films. The Hobbit films and Kong weren't maybe quite to LOTR's standards but they were all excellent by blockbuster standards and making blockbusters with a real heart to them and a good deal of visual flare is in the words of a great man "his first best destiny".
(This post was edited by moreorless on Mar 1 2015, 5:59am)
|
|
|
Hanzkaz
Rohan
Mar 1 2015, 12:09pm
Post #20 of 23
(939 views)
Shortcut
|
|
One of the benefits of the relative lack of source material -
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
- is that it can give writers more freedom (of course, that is not always a good thing). It could help with the budget, too.
Personally, I think it is possible to come up with good original stories set in the Middle-Earth movie-verse. I'd actually like an anthology-type TV series with each episode telling a different tale.
One question I would like to ask is, why would any studio give up a film franchise where each movie made, at least, almost a billion?
From the makers of 'The Lord of the Rings' comes the sequel to Peter Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy -
'The War in the North, Part I : The Sword in the Tomb'.
(This post was edited by Hanzkaz on Mar 1 2015, 12:17pm)
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Mar 1 2015, 4:25pm
Post #21 of 23
(888 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Law of Diminishing Returns
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
- is that it can give writers more freedom (of course, that is not always a good thing). It could help with the budget, too.
Personally, I think it is possible to come up with good original stories set in the Middle-Earth movie-verse. I'd actually like an anthology-type TV series with each episode telling a different tale.
One question I would like to ask is, why would any studio give up a film franchise where each movie made, at least, almost a billion?
It depends on if the studio heads think that they can continue the franchise with a viable project that is likely to continue to find a large audience. Even the most likely possibilities to continue the Middle-earth series would carry the risk of not sparking enough interest.
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Mar 1 2015, 6:28pm
Post #22 of 23
(850 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But is risk not true of any film project?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It depends on if the studio heads think that they can continue the franchise with a viable project that is likely to continue to find a large audience. Even the most likely possibilities to continue the Middle-earth series would carry the risk of not sparking enough interest.
Personally I was surprised at the reboots that seem to happen so fast (Spiderman and even Batman). To me those were risky.
Unless it was straight-to-DVD horrible, seems to me there is a ready market for a well-made ME prequel/sequel, especially w. a little passage of time, letting folks miss ME for a bit. Tolkien "purists" may frown, I guess, but it wasn't Tolkien fans alone that made the Hobbit movies a success.
And I'd sooner see another ME film made than more comic book films, even tho re the Avengers, Ironman, Cpt. America etc. have been great - more examples of what good casting, script, and direction can do. So I think the same could be true of an ME sequel/prequel.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Mar 1 2015, 6:38pm
Post #23 of 23
(847 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Not all risks are seen as equal.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Some film projects seem like a safer bet than others; although, even seeming shoe-ins can fail (Ghostbusters 2 anyone?). Studios are more comfortable with sequels that keep the same actors in the same roles and use essentially the same formula as the previous film(s). Of course, this attitude also discourages muich originality in big-budget Hollywood films.
You do bring up an interesting point in regards to made-for-video movies. It is maybe a bit surprising that we haven't seen any DTV animated prequels for any of the Middle-earth video games such as Shadow of Mordor. Such films have become a common marketing tool in recent years.
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock
|
|
|
|
|
