Posted on 11/04/2017 7:37:48 AM PDT by EdnaMode
Has Amazon found the Game of Thrones it’s been seeking?
A Lord of the Rings TV series is in the very early development stages, according to The Hollywood Reporter, from Warner Bros. Television, whose feature-film division produced the LOTR movies. There’s no writer attached to the project yet — Warner Bros. is still looking to nail down the rights from the estate of book author J.R.R. Tolkien — but Amazon Studios has already emerged as an potential home.
Rings, of course, has already been adapted into a trilogy of films directed by Peter Jackson, which grossed nearly $3 billion at the worldwide box office and won a total of 17 Oscars. The fantasy epic is set in the fictional Middle-earth, where hobbit Frodo Baggins leads a fellowship of do-gooders on a quest to destroy an all-powerful ring. (But is it possible to stretch Frodo’s story far enough to accommodate an ongoing TV series?)
In any case, a LOTR TV series sounds like just the kind of thing Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos was looking for when he directed his TV division to find the next Game of Thrones — i.e., a high-end drama with global appeal. That directive led to Amazon scrapping plans for a second season of the Christina Ricci period drama Z: The Beginning of Everything.
For LOTR? Yes. For WOT, no, as the first book didn’t come out until the 1980’s.
I wish they’d have asked me. David Eddings “The Belgariad” series would be perfect.
Walking, walking, walking.
Magic
Walking, walking, walking.
That was my first thought when my son showed me this story. There is a lot of backstory written by Tolkien which has never been explored on screen.
Seconded.
Magic
Walking, walking, walking.
A clever adaptation of the AMC formula:
Walking, walking, walking.
Kill zombies
Walking, walking, walking.
***
Also, some of the magic sequences involve killing orcs, so it's damned near identical.
The superb movies pretty much took care of the cinematic appeal of LOTR.
I would like to see Patrick O’Brian’s Aubrey/Maturin series explored book for book. “Master and Commander” is my favorite all-time movie and if Amazon or Netflix or HBO can live up to that lofty standard, I would buy it on BluRay sight unseen.
I disagree. The movies told some of the story Tolkien wrote, and a lot of stuff Peter Jackson made up. A movie or tv show could be made that would include only characters and events from the text, even if not ALL the characters and events from the text.
>>>not enough LGBT content in the books
It is because of the fewness of women among them that the kind of the Dwarves increases slowly, and is in peril when they have no secure dwellings. For Dwarves take only one wife or husband each in their lives, and are jealous, as in all matters of their rights. The number of dwarf-men that marry is actually less than one-third. For not all the women take husbands: some desire none; some desire one that they cannot get, and so will have no other. As for the men, very many also do not desire marriage, being engrossed in their crafts.
Gimli Gloin’s son is renowned, for he was one of the Nine Walkers that set out with the Ring; and he remained in the company of King Elessar throughout the War. He was named Elf-friend because of the great love that grew between him and Legolas, son of King Thranduil, and because of his reverence for the Lady Galadriel.
After the fall of Sauron, Gimli brought south a part of the Dwarf-folk of Erebor, and he became Lord of the Glittering Caves. He and his people did great works in Gondor and Rohan. For Minas Tirith they forged gates of mithril and steel to replace those broken by the Witch-king. Legolas his friend also brought south Elves out of Greenwood, and they dwelt in Ithilien, and it became once again the fairest country in all the westlands.
Here follows one of the last notes in the Red Book
We have heard tell that Legolas took Gimli Gloin’s son with him because of their great friendship, greater than any that has been between Elf and Dwarf. If this is true, then it is strange indeed: that a Dwarf should be willing to leave Middle-earth for any love, or that the Eldar should receive him, or that the Lords of the West should permit it. But it is said that Gimli went also out of desire to see again the beauty of Galadriel; and it may be that she, being mighty among the Eldar, obtained this grace for him. More cannot be said of this matter.
This is a huge "IF". Christopher Tolkien literally disowned his own son at one point over a dispute over these film rights. Nothing more is likely to be made until Christopher Tolkien passes away. (He's 92 years old)
Why??? You have the movies that were very well done and I see no reason to go back over that ground.
Mind you, I had those same objections prior to Jackson's herculean effort and what we got was a far better realization than I thought possible, so there's that. But even Jackson didn't get it all in. And this being television in these corrupt times you know every crank activist group is going to be clamoring for just that one little change that suits their politics of the moment. I'm not optimistic that the producers and advertisers will be able to resist.
I didn’t see anything in the movies that Peter Jackson added. He left some things out and rearranged a few minor events to make the stories break at a valid dramatic point, but I don’t see his fingerprints on the story itself.
Then we have no basis for discussion. Ne zot!
TV would do to the LOTR what Jackson did to “The Hobbit”...
“I didn’t see anything in the movies that Peter Jackson added.”
Arwen as Wonder Woman in the first? Strider as self-doubting, not wanting to be king? Frodo turned into a whining weakling?
Jackson does action sequences. Character development is beyond him.
All the everlasting *falling* sequences. It was even more pronounced in the Hobbit movies.
Jackson did some things really well. His battle of Helm’s Deep was excellent. His dwarves in the first Hobbit movie were brilliant. (I got drunk with those guys in Austin in 987.) But the fight scenes got more and more video-game.
I understand leaving things out of a movie made from a bunch of really long books. What I don’t like is leaving out content from the source, while adding material that wasn’t in the source. It’s as if a movie of “War and Peace” had scenes of the Battle of New Orleans.
Second second.
I was not happy at all with the Peter Jackson treatment of the LOTR movie trilogy. I think there is an appetite for another adaptation of LOTR provided it is well done. And recent history has shown that television has now equalled and in some ways has surpassed the motion picture industry in terms of cinematography, writing and acting.
Tolkien was good at character development, but weak in action. Jackson is the reverse. There were parts in the first book critical to showing Frodo as a strong, courageous character. Jackson left those out.
Arwen was a footnote, and best kept that way. As my young daughter noticed early on, “What would an elf-woman who was nearly 2000 years old find interesting in a man?”
The Hobbit - the book - was all about Bilbo’s growth. Jackson had no clue what to do with it and didn’t seem to care about anything but $$$.
It is the old Hollywood problem. Romance is powerful, but sex is easier to film. Suspense makes a movie great, but bang-bang is easy to film. As my Dad told my sister, “It is hard to find love if you will settle for sex”. Hollywood settles for sex, or action, rather than try for love or suspense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.