Amazon's Lord of the Rings Series Will Premiere In September 2022 (theverge.com) 82
One of Amazon's most anticipated originals to date, a yet-unnamed Lord of the Rings original series, will officially debut on Prime Video on Friday, September 2nd, 2022. The Verge reports: Along with a premiere date, Amazon Studios released an official first image from the forthcoming series, which will be set in Middle-earth's Second Age. The series will take place thousands of years before the events chronicled in J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings books, and it will follow characters "both familiar and new, as they confront the long-feared re-emergence of evil to Middle-earth."
The image release is tied to the series's production wrap after filming in New Zealand. Fans quickly speculated that the series will be set in Valinor, as the image depicts what appear to be the Two Trees. The untitled project is a huge investment by Amazon in its Prime Video streaming service. The series's first season alone reportedly cost around $465 million to produce. For context about what a massive creative undertaking this series has been for Amazon Studios, the final season of Game of Thrones was reported to have cost as much as $15 million per episode (though its budget was originally around $5 million per episode).
The image release is tied to the series's production wrap after filming in New Zealand. Fans quickly speculated that the series will be set in Valinor, as the image depicts what appear to be the Two Trees. The untitled project is a huge investment by Amazon in its Prime Video streaming service. The series's first season alone reportedly cost around $465 million to produce. For context about what a massive creative undertaking this series has been for Amazon Studios, the final season of Game of Thrones was reported to have cost as much as $15 million per episode (though its budget was originally around $5 million per episode).
Writers⦠(Score:5, Funny)
Re:Writers⦠(Score:4, Insightful)
The high production budget will ensure that it will look good
No, it will only ensure that it has detailed CGI. Lots of things have good CGI, but don't look that good. And others have weak CGI, but do look good. It depends a lot on the producers.
Re: Writers⦠(Score:2)
Ding ding. This is why Ridley Scott Films are so iconic. I mean I have a copy of the Star Wars films with all the modern updates ripped but these films are classics because we like the characters. Set design was decent but I think Ridley Scott is probably one of the all time best.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fairly sure there are. They should be fairly cheap too, Hollywood very obviously doesn't employ them currently.
Re:Writers⦠(Score:5, Interesting)
The high production budget will ensure that it will look good, let us hope that they employ talented writers to come up with a compelling, fresh story.
Talented writers are exactly the problem with American movies that are based on books, these writers have too much talent to stick to the original story and insist on creating something new and different. If I wanted to watch a new story, I can go watch something NOT based on a book.
If we started with a book, I much rather prefer a movie made by the Japanese studios, they knew how to create a movie that followed the actual story in the book, without the need to fabricate something out of the blue.
Re: (Score:3, Flamebait)
What do you have against "new and different", surely what matters is whether it's good or not? Anyway I would point to "The Expanse" as a perfect example of sticking closely enough to the original story to preserve its essence, while making sensible changes to fit with the TV series format (and other realities). So Amazon has form here.
Re:Writers⦠(Score:5, Insightful)
What do you have against "new and different", surely what matters is whether it's good or not?
If it's different, it's something else. Let it be something else instead of ripping off a name people care about only to disappoint them.
Re: (Score:1)
Amazon has form alright. Always trying to squeeze in more ads and charge extra for everything. You know, they will push in more and more ads over time. Break up streaming into more and more channels and recreate the cable TV experience, with endless amazon ads. Free if you can tolerate and most will not, they are just nasty to deal with.
Re:Writers⦠(Score:4, Insightful)
Amazon's Lord of the Rings is a reactionary action by Amazon to HBO's success with Game of Thrones. And if ever there were an example of something running off the rails because the show runners and writers decided, literally, and publicly stated, "we know better than the original author. We're doing our own thing," it's Game of Thrones.
That said, I'd like to see some decent fantasy programming that doesn't go completely batshit just because it can.
Someone else mentioned The Expanse. Now there's a show that's continually improving the quality of its storytelling, even if it did start out at a really good place. I wish that wasn't the exception.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the problem with Game of Thrones was that they ran out of books and had to steer off (minus some broad outline.) I hadn't heard that the show runners thought they could tell a better story.
Re: (Score:2)
> I hadn't heard that the show runners thought they could tell a better story.
Seasons 8 being shit is pretty good evidence that "Dumb and Dumber" don't know how to write quality.
--
Did you hear how the show ended?
Drogon went East,
Jon went North,
Arya went West,
And the show went South.
Re: (Score:2)
Now there's a show that's continually improving the quality of its storytelling
You haven't watched anything beyond season 3, I see.
To be fair, the source material also falters for a while around that point (although not as much as the show). Let's hope the recovery in Tiamat's Wrath is as good or better on screen.
Re: (Score:2)
Talented writers are exactly the problem with American movies that are based on books, these writers have too much talent to stick to the original story and insist on creating something new and different.
Yeah, that was what went wrong with Game of Thrones. The writing of the last seasons was just too good. Oh, damn these talented Hollywood writers.
Re: (Score:1)
Skeptical (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem with Prime Video is that nothing is included but old reruns. 100% of the times I've checked for something there, it has required extra payments. They don't have good enough producers to make it seem likely that they'll produce something worth paying for, and their large budget doesn't really mean much. Look at Game of Thrones; even at $15m per episode the final season was an unmitigated flop from a viewer perspective; it still made good money, but it was such a flop they poisoned the well for fu
Re: (Score:3)
While I agree with your opinion regarding the final season of Game of Thrones (and also think the second-to-last season was fairly bad as well) - I'm not clear on why you brought up an HBO production as part of a statement about how bad Amazon Prime productions are.
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with your opinion regarding the final season of Game of Thrones (and also think the second-to-last season was fairly bad as well) - I'm not clear on why you brought up an HBO production as part of a statement about how bad Amazon Prime productions are.
I really should watch GOT sometime. I have the whole series someplace on my NAS.
Re: Skeptical (Score:2)
Great up until the last season. Let the debate commence on how you screw up a killer series so horrifically.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if there's a whole lot of debate... the show runners very good when they had GRRM's books for a blueprint, but bad once they had to come up with their own ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because you didn't read the summary.
Re: (Score:2)
There is some okay original content on Prime, like Bosch, The Boys and The Tick (now sadly cancelled).
Bosch just ended after 7 seasons and all of them are excellent. Apparently there is a spin-off in the works.
Problem is you can watch all that in a few months and then there's nothing else.
At least LOTR has been renewed for season 2 already so it can't be that dire.
Re: (Score:2)
Totally missed the humor. You wanna see a good live version check out the series with Patrick Warburton.
Re: (Score:2)
I enjoyed the episodes I watch of Tick as well. That said, my only other reference for the Tick were my memories of the cartoon and show when I was a kid
There's a "free to me" toggle (Score:2)
There's a "free to me" toggle that will make it so Amazon only shows you content that comes free with Prime. There's plenty of original content on there.
Honestly your 100% number sounds incredibly suspect to me as even browsing in their default mode most of the stuff Amazon initially shows me is free with content I have to pay for becoming more common as I scroll down. Either you don't understand Amazon's UI at all or you didn't try very many times.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm not a TV head like you are? Maybe I have hobbies, and only went there and searched when I was looking for specific things. And when I didn't find it, out of curiosity, I checked for the existence of a few other things, to find out if it was just bad luck, or if most of the content costs extra. And most of the content costs extra.
Why would I have needed to try it "many times?" Why would I need to "understand Amazon's UI" to search for specific things, and find that they cost extra? I think your com
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm not a TV head like you are?
Who says I'm a "TV Head"? The toggle I describe is right there on the main videos page for the service, it is in no way hidden. Furthermore, on the default page you load when you first access this service Amazon is always hyping its own original content. If it's not doing so in the main banner their content will be highlighted in one of the first few category scroll bars under "original content"
And most of the content costs extra.
And if that is what you found then that answers all the rest of your questions about why you should understand the
thousands of years before (Score:3)
I have never liked prequels
Re: (Score:2)
Prequels are ok if they're written by the original author, but the problem with prequel movies is that they're always written by new authors, who naturally want to be noticed as writers, they want to put their own creative stamp on it, and that really sucks in a prequel. You want a prequel to seem like it was written by the original author, so much so that the original author is given all the credit. And it is hard to get a good writer to do that, and impossible without a good writer.
Re: thousands of years before (Score:4, Interesting)
Prequels that keep the characters are exactly how you describe. This is why Star Wars anthology got screwed. However, if the universe is the part that's the same and characters are all new, there is a better balance of freedom for the new author. Parts of Star Wars animation has done this better. For instance there is an animation in the Star Wars universe that does a much better job at explaining why Anakin betrayed the Jedi council (the empire could use the force to influence people in their dreams).
Re: (Score:2)
Fate/Zero is a rare example of a prequel being superior to the original.
Re:thousands of years before (Score:5, Interesting)
I quite enjoyed reading The Silmarillion. Prequel books can be compelling at times.
Re: (Score:1)
I quite enjoyed reading The Silmarillion. Prequel books can be compelling at times.
I could just never get into The Silmarillion. It was sooo dry compared to The Hobbit and LOTR.
I loved that Tolkien had such a deep backstory to everything, and I loved learning bits of it as I read the actual fun exciting stories (Hobbit and LOTR), but I just couldn't do The Silmarillion. If his goal was to make something as dry as a traditional history book with that one, then he succeeded ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The Silmarillion *was* a history book and not a prequel.
Exactly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The draft was then continually worked on, including his son's gathering and editing.
Re: (Score:2)
Prequels CAN work, if you do them right.
First, you cannot use any canon characters as main characters. This is (among other reasons) why Solo was such a bore. There is no suspense. You KNOW they survive. Any danger you put them into will be overcome, you can't even do the usual suspense of disbelieve because not only the heroes have to win eventually, ALL of them have to get out alive.
Or, another way, if there's one new face with the established crew, you just know who won't make it.
A prequel also must fit
Re: (Score:2)
Prequels can work just fine if they're laid out in line with what "follows".
Problem is, most writers of movie prequels want to expand on what was written, not set it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Either of their death was technically on the table. The story could have worked out if any of them died.
Re: (Score:2)
First, you cannot use any canon characters as main characters.
In Tolkein's universe, the Elves were created at the beginning of the world and have been around since then. There's also the wizards (Istari). There are canon characters that can be used as main characters in a prequel here: Galadriel, Celeborn, Elrond, Gandalf, Sauruman, Sauron, Isuldir, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
It might have been amusing if the Censor or an "Intelligence Officer" came across those notebooks. Could have been hard to explain. "What [sound of finger bones being broken,
i its like any thing lately .... (Score:1)
if its like any thing lately its not going to be a scifi storyline but a more "modern" even thought i have amazon will watch rotten tomatoes if it gets below a 50% by the critics i will go watch it. any thing higher and will give it a miss
Re: (Score:2)
We already knew illiterates preferred lower rated movies. But it is always funny to hear an opinion from "doesn't know what the genre is" guy.
Interesting comparison (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think anyone would want have their new project compared to the last season of GoT.
Re: (Score:2)
These producer-writers have no previous credits. So for them, being compared to anything you heard of is a big coup!
There are limits (Score:2)
These producer-writers have no previous credits. So for them, being compared to anything you heard of is a big coup!
I don't think they'd want to be compared to "anything" just like that. After all, they could be compared to:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if it's on discs box set - the price of those might indicate something about the actual quality.
Oh, boy. (Score:2)
I should be excited, but I'm envisioning an endless stream of LotR-ish stuff, to go along with our endless stream of StarWars-ish stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
The Mandalorian was quite good.
Re: (Score:2)
To bad I was done with Star Wars after the sequels.
Re: (Score:2)
The Mandalorian was quite good.
I found the Mandalorian just ok. It wasn't horrible, but the writing was mediocre and the acting often bordered on atrocious. Some episodes were noticeably better than others, which made the whole thing feel somewhat uneven.
Don't forget Marvel! (Score:2)
Don't forget the endless strong of Marvel as well!
Hollywood has always leaned a bit on sequels and established properties from other formats as less risky investments but nowadays it feels like they're doing that far more frequently and too much for my tastes.
I really don't feel like a big budget comedy with an original story like the first Ghost Busters could even be made today.
Underwhelming Cast (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, but then again, most of the cast of the LOTR movies were pretty much unknown.
I wonder what the heck Lenny Henry is going to play - hopefully they're not turning Middle Earth into some PC-centric land...
Maybe he's going to play Elrond. I'm joking - he's not a woman.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there is the unanswered question of who lived in Gondor (and Rohan) before the Numenoreans arrived in their big boats from over the seas.
Re: (Score:3)
Amazon could not deliver your package (Score:5, Funny)
Amazon is really into rings (Score:3)
Aren't they themselves the Lords of the Rings?
Re: (Score:2)
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
Well, you can't say they don't know how to properly name a product.
hmmmm (Score:2)
Can't be any more tedious and overmilked... (Score:2)
...than the Hobbit movies.
Re: (Score:2)
The original Hobbit movie from 1977 is a classic.
Wheel of Time (Score:1)
Re: Wheel of Time (Score:1)
Let's hope not. Wheel of Time is a classic example of a series that is mostly composed of filler. Stripped of Jordan's boring attention to detail there's barely enough there for a single series.
Re: Wheel of Time (Score:2)
The worldbuilding and character development (which I assume is what you call "filler") is what makes the Wheel of Time good.
Somehow there are many people who think that the first book is good and the rest is boring, while the truth is that it starts out as garbage generic teen fantasy and gradually becomes better until it becomes pretty damn good.
Re: Wheel of Time (Score:1)
If you seriously think a hundred pages devoted to people getting up in the morning is 'world building' then you probably think the IRS code is an epic tale of accountancy.
He pulled that shit in book 3 and at that point I knew we were dealing with a bullshit artist determined to pad those fuckers out as much as possible. A good editor could slice that series down to a trilogy and nothing of value would be lost.
Rehash (Score:2)
Rehash of a rehash of junk.
Title says it all (Score:2)
It's not the Lord of the Rings, it's the Silmarillion.
The fact they can't even get the name of the book they're adapting right is enough to know it will not be true to the original, and therefore is likely to be bad.
I see (Score:2)
"The series will take place thousands of years before the events"
So stories from Middle-Earths Stone-Age Cavemen.
Re: (Score:2)