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: Middle-earth TV Series Discussion:
I'm wary of how Amazon will handle this

Victariongreyjoy
Lorien


Jul 12, 2:20pm

Post #1 of 11 (1543 views)
Shortcut
I'm wary of how Amazon will handle this Can't Post

Could go either way. It can be the best show since GOT and on pair with it. But it could also be a abomination that makes The Hobbit looks like a masterpiece.

Honestly I wished WB would continue with making ME movies. The grand and epic scale of Tolkien's work belongs to the big screen imo.


Chen G.
Rohan

Jul 12, 5:28pm

Post #2 of 11 (1499 views)
Shortcut
Depends on the story [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
The grand and epic scale of Tolkien's work belongs to the big screen imo.


I would have begrudged the idea of a TV series from the outset if it had anything to do with the events of the First Age, which do indeed belong on the big-screen as far as I'm concerned.

However, I've always viewed the Second Age if not as "filler" than certainly as bridging material between the other two ages, which Tolkien was much more preoccupied with. So TV works for the Second Age, to me.


skyofcoffeebeans
Lorien

Jul 12, 8:13pm

Post #3 of 11 (1475 views)
Shortcut
I disagree [In reply to] Can't Post

TV has the structural opportunity to bring more of the soul of [I]The Lord of the Rings[/I] to life without the distillation necessary to render it on a theater screen.

I say [I]The Lord of the Rings[/I] because I believe a remake is the natural, inevitable endgame of this project, no matter where they start.


Chen G.
Rohan

Jul 12, 9:03pm

Post #4 of 11 (1470 views)
Shortcut
Disagree [In reply to] Can't Post

TV isn't qualitatively different to cinema: both are visual media at their core. So while there is the quantitive difference of TV accomodating a longer overall runtime, it still requires changes to be made to the source material, which is why TV adaptations aren't really that much more "faithful" than film adaptations. Look at the changes made to Game of Thrones, for a recent reference.

People dreaming about TV making for a better adaptations of The Lord of the Rings trilogy are doing just that - dreaming, or at least subscribing to wishful thinking.

The story of The Lord of the Rings is done with. As much as people like to point out Hollywood's propensity to remake its classics, it rarely remakes true classic, even when there's a source material just waiting to be re-interperated. There's a reason we haven't seen a remake of The Bridge Over the River Kwai, The Godfather or The Silence of the Lambs. The legacy of those films AS FILMS prohibits them from being remade, and the same - I wager - would prove true of The Lord of the Rings in the decades to come.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Jul 12, 9:07pm)


Althoun
Lorien

Jul 12, 10:05pm

Post #5 of 11 (1456 views)
Shortcut
Filler/bridging? [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To

In Reply To
However, I've always viewed the Second Age if not as "filler" than certainly as bridging material between the other two ages, which Tolkien was much more preoccupied with. So TV works for the Second Age, to me.


That would very much depend upon what 'arc' of the Second Age you're referring to, it being a 'composite' of two quite separate works: Of the Rings of Power (the forging of the rings) which is basically just essential backstory for the events of the Third Age War of the Ring and Akallabeth (Númenor-Atlantis).

The latter is certainly not 'filler' or 'bridging' but in conception was a wholly distinct pre-LotR work penned by Tolkien in the mid-1930s, originally forming part of a pre-publication of the Hobbit science-fiction time travel novel called The Lost Road (1936), in which a philologist has recurring dream encounters with 'Elendil' the Númenórean (survivor of the Anandune / Atlantis sinking) and eventually comes to realize that he is the 'reincarnation' (in some sense) of this ancient pre-Ice Age personage and can even 'remember' his life experiences in the dream-world. So he returns to Númenor in thought before the deluge, as Elendil speaking to his son Herendil (Isildur), when it is in the process of being corrupted by the evil divine being Sauron (appearing here for the first time!) under its tyrannical King Tar-Calion (Ar-Pharazon); where Tolkien describes in detail for the first time the satanic cult that has taken over the Isle under its high priest Sauron in his dark circular temple in Armenelos, the impending war with the Valar to wrest eternal life from the Undying Lands, the persecution flight of the Faithful etc.

Númenor, therefore, is not some filler-appendage between ages but a proper full-sized pre-LotR and indeed pre-Hobbit conception in itself that Tolkien continually returned to and progressively developed throughout the 1930s-1970s (in the Lost Road, The Notion Club Papers, The Drowning of the Anadune in the 1940s, The Akallabeth, Aldarion and Erendis near the end of his life etc.).

Indeed, it was when he couldn't get his time-travel Númenor-Atlantis novel published after the Hobbit in 1937, along with the Quenta Silmarillion, that Tolkien started (reluctantly) on LotR - another story about Hobbits which was what his publisher wanted (whereas he wanted to write about the Silmarils, the Noldor and the Númenóreans).

But Tolkien later found a way of 'synchronizing' Númenor into this new Hobbit-tale by species-bending Strider (originally a Hobbit named Trotter!) into none other than Aragorn, the Númenórean heir of the line of Elendil; with the 'bridging' Celebrimbor material ultimately being created to connect Númenor-Atlantis with the new forging of the rings plot.

That Númenor originally bore no relation to the 'rings of power' is evidenced by the fact that Tolkien never really worked out how the 'one ring' survived the Deluge when Sauron's body was destroyed but his spirit fled back to Middle-earth to reincarnate itself. In the original Drowning of the Anadune, Sauron hadn't had a Ring because there weren't yet any 'rings of power' at that time!


(This post was edited by Althoun on Jul 12, 10:10pm)


skyofcoffeebeans
Lorien

Jul 15, 6:47pm

Post #6 of 11 (1228 views)
Shortcut
Eh [In reply to] Can't Post

Regardless of length or quality, the state of the industry now demands regurgitation. We will see a television adaptation / reboot of Tolkien's book onscreen in the next ten years, regardless of how good or long it ends up being. This isn't something I necessarily dream or wish for– it's just what will be demanded from the top down because that has been the most sound business decision for the industry in the last decade. You can thank Disney for that.

And I don't entirely agree with the examples you listed. Hannibal was two seasons away from remaking Silence of the Lambs before it was canceled. The Godfather could easily be pitched and picked up as a television show in today's landscape if someone wanted to make it badly enough. The Bridge Over the River Kwai doesn't lend itself to television, but it's fairly miraculous that a forgettable remake has never got off the ground as it has with so many other films of that time and genre.

Jackson's films aren't the end-all be-all adaptations of that particular book, and it's a mistake to think that this generation of filmmakers will set it in stone in the same way that the prior generation revered the filmmakers directly before them. Films were regarded as disposable for most of the twentieth century, and though icons like Scorsese have pioneered preservation and an understanding of film history, today's executives clearly regard IP as disposable for the sake of their own business interests. It's an inevitability that characters of the Third Age will return to the small screen in an expanded format. Could be a few seasons in, and it could be a failed spinoff– it's just a question of when.

I would also argue that TV is certainly qualitatively different to cinema– it's qualitatively worse, in the sense that TV budgets prove consistently unable to account for montage and consistently dynamic camera movements. Lots of walking and talking, maybe some fight scenes, but often fairly flat in its approach to visual storytelling.


Omnigeek
Lorien


Jul 25, 1:49am

Post #7 of 11 (680 views)
Shortcut
Correction [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Could go either way. It can be the best show since GOT and on pair with it. But it could also be a abomination that makes The Hobbit looks like a masterpiece.

Honestly I wished WB would continue with making ME movies. The grand and epic scale of Tolkien's work belongs to the big screen imo.


I wish the old New Line was around to push the creation of ME movies or TV shows. WB is the same corporation that gave us The Hobbit and Birds of Prey. They have no concept of honring the intellectual property they have inherited or purchased.


Chen G.
Rohan

Jul 25, 9:45am

Post #8 of 11 (636 views)
Shortcut
The Lord of the Rings are also WB movies [In reply to] Can't Post

And The Hobbit was a New Line movie, New-Line being owned by Warner Brothers.

If you think Robert Shaye or Mark Ordesky are to credit for the films' rather than the director and writers, you're wrong.


(This post was edited by Chen G. on Jul 25, 9:49am)


Paulo Gabriel
Lorien

Jul 27, 1:42pm

Post #9 of 11 (486 views)
Shortcut
Agreed. // [In reply to] Can't Post

 


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Jul 27, 3:28pm

Post #10 of 11 (481 views)
Shortcut
Yes, but... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
The Lord of the Rings are also WB movies

And The Hobbit was a New Line movie, New-Line being owned by Warner Brothers.

If you think Robert Shaye or Mark Ordesky are to credit for the films' rather than the director and writers, you're wrong.


...New Line was being run very differently when the Lord of the Rings films were being made. Warner Bros. was much more hands-on during the production of the Hobbit movies. At least that is my perception of the situation.

#FidelityToTolkien


Chen G.
Rohan

Jul 27, 6:23pm

Post #11 of 11 (467 views)
Shortcut
It was different, alright [In reply to] Can't Post

New Line was more independent from Warners back in the early 2000s. The Hobbit had completely different executive producers.

But ON THE SET the production crew was the same down to the continuity supervisor.

 
 

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.