Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New ‘Lord of the Rings’ Movie From Stephen Colbert and His Son in Development at Warner Bros.
Variety ^ | 03 24 2026 | Jack Dunn

Posted on 03/25/2026 4:57:21 AM PDT by yesthatjallen

Warner Bros. has revealed that Stephen Colbert and his son are developing a brand new “Lord of the Rings” movie. The announcement came Tuesday night via the studio’s various social media accounts.

The video announcement opened with “Lord of the Rings” director Peter Jackson giving a quick update about the next film in the fantasy franchise: Andy Serkis’ “The Hunt for Gollum.” Jackson said of the project, which is set for release in 2027: “Andy is doing a terrific job. It’s looking amazing. The script is coming together really well and I think it’s going to be a really good film.”

Jackson then teased his “very special partner” who will help develop the next film after “The Hunt for Gollum,” titled “The Lord of the Rings: Shadows of the Past.” That partner is none other than “The Late Show Host” Colbert, who Jackson patched in through a video call. Colbert, a vocal Tolkien fanatic, then explained that the plot of his movie will come from chapters of “The Fellowship of the Ring” that didn’t make it into Jackson’s 2001 adaptation.

SNIP

(Excerpt) Read more at variety.com ...


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Miscellaneous; Music/Entertainment
KEYWORDS: colbert; lotr; peterjackson; stephencolbert

Click here: to donate by Credit Card

Or here: to donate by PayPal

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794

Thank you very much and God bless you.


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-45 next last

1 posted on 03/25/2026 4:57:21 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen

I sense a cinematic disaster and if Jackson has any sense he will disassociate himself from it immediately.


2 posted on 03/25/2026 4:58:50 AM PDT by Rummyfan (Ok In anyq war between the civilized man and the savage, support lthe civilized man.👨 so t tv)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen

Starring James Carville.


3 posted on 03/25/2026 4:59:48 AM PDT by Kudsman (Cheat free elections means the end of the left. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan

2nd that.

And Jackson is generally a really smart, interesting dude. If you haven’t seen They Shall Not Grow Old, as well as any videos of Jackson’s military history museum collection, you should.


4 posted on 03/25/2026 5:02:36 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen

I’ll be staying away in droves. Anyways I never see these stupid crypto-leprechaun movies.


5 posted on 03/25/2026 5:05:15 AM PDT by dennisw (Qatarlson the Insufferable blowhard = There is no limit to human stupidity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen

The only disappointment I had with the Jackson LOTR treatment was the disinclusion of Tom Bombadil. That and the scouring of the Shire.


6 posted on 03/25/2026 5:07:43 AM PDT by Sirius Lee ("Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen

No Good comes of these morons. The trust that sold rights should be sued for defamation of character of a great Chritian writer.


7 posted on 03/25/2026 5:10:44 AM PDT by Mlheureux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sirius Lee
The only disappointment I had with the Jackson LOTR treatment was the disinclusion of Tom Bombadil.

The exclusion of Tom was understandable. If you had to exclude any one character, it would have to be Tom.

Regards,

8 posted on 03/25/2026 5:11:59 AM PDT by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek

I would have excluded the skeleton guys on horses. Those guys were jerks!


9 posted on 03/25/2026 5:14:22 AM PDT by Sirius Lee ("Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen
We've seen Stephen Colbert's productions. Expect him to produce a gay porn movie.



10 posted on 03/25/2026 5:20:25 AM PDT by T.B. Yoits
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen

How to keep getting some of that laundered cash - hey lets make a movie.


11 posted on 03/25/2026 5:21:13 AM PDT by MomwithHope (Forever grateful to all our patriots, past, present and future.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen

I’m good. Hard pass.


12 posted on 03/25/2026 5:22:09 AM PDT by yuleeyahoo (“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” - the deep-state)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sirius Lee

“The only disappointment I had with the Jackson LOTR treatment was the disinclusion of Tom Bombadil. That and the scouring of the Shire.”


I left the theater missing Tom as well.

Never the less I doubt I’ll see this or any other of these films.

The first three were enough for me.


13 posted on 03/25/2026 5:22:31 AM PDT by BBB333 ((The Power Of Trump Compels You!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan

“Colbert, a vocal Tolkien fanatic...”

THAT’S his credentials that qualify him to be involved in the production?


14 posted on 03/25/2026 5:23:32 AM PDT by V_TWIN (America....so great even the people that hate it won't leave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen

This is dead in the water.
The ongoing destruction of Tolkien’s works has turned most fans towards dreading whatever the woke plan.
I won’t see it. Colbert is not a good partner for this.


15 posted on 03/25/2026 5:26:01 AM PDT by 1ScrappyArmyMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sirius Lee

Bombadil’s inclusion in the books was only done by Tolkien at the behest of his kids, or grandkids, because they loved the character so much from previous bedtime stories. Bombadil’s character would have been a bit incongruent with the flow of the movie’s storyline, added a great deal of expense and, more importantly, added a great deal of time, to an already long, long movie for a tangent that really led nowhere.
Tom is an interesting fellow, for sure, but a smart move by Peter Jackson.


16 posted on 03/25/2026 5:29:00 AM PDT by ArtDodger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ArtDodger

Tom is central to the meaning of the story. A forest being who loved nature and his wife’s big knockers.


17 posted on 03/25/2026 5:32:04 AM PDT by Sirius Lee ("Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: V_TWIN

In this day and age does it matter? Those supposedly qualified make tired reboots and woke garbage mostly.


18 posted on 03/25/2026 5:35:40 AM PDT by MrRelevant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ArtDodger

Curious: How do you know that?


19 posted on 03/25/2026 5:41:28 AM PDT by Reily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MrRelevant

“In this day and age does it matter?”

That’s kinda my point....the libs set the bar so low everyone is a qualified expert.

Using that logic, I can be a brain surgeon. SMH


20 posted on 03/25/2026 5:42:17 AM PDT by V_TWIN (America....so great even the people that hate it won't leave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-45 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson