New 'Lord of the Rings' Movies Set At Warner Bros 131
Warner Bros. Pictures is revamping the "Lord of the Rings" film franchise. Variety reports: On a Thursday earnings call, Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav announced that newly-installed studio leaders Mike De Luca and Pam Abdy have brokered a deal to make "multiple" films based on the beloved J. R. R. Tolkien books. The projects will be developed through WB label New Line Cinema. The first "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, helmed by Peter Jackson, grossed nearly $3 billion worldwide; Jackson's follow-up trilogy based on Tolkien's "The Hobbit" matched those grosses.
No filmmakers have been attached to the projects as yet, but in a statement to Variety, Jackson and his main "Lord of the Rings" collaborators Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens said Warner Bros. and Embracer "have kept us in the loop every step of the way." "We look forward to speaking with them further to hear their vision for the franchise moving forward," Jackson, Walsh and Boyens said.
No filmmakers have been attached to the projects as yet, but in a statement to Variety, Jackson and his main "Lord of the Rings" collaborators Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens said Warner Bros. and Embracer "have kept us in the loop every step of the way." "We look forward to speaking with them further to hear their vision for the franchise moving forward," Jackson, Walsh and Boyens said.
Too much (Score:5, Insightful)
I do wish they would erase the hobbit trilogy and remake it, though.
Re:Too much (Score:5, Insightful)
Warner: YES
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
People were too hard on the Amazon prequels, which I think weren't half bad. If anything they were less woke than the source material. I mean what happened to the beards female dwarves were supposed to have?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They remake Lord of the Rings every 20 years or so. It's just time again.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha, yeah basically came here to say the same thing. I enjoy Tolkien's original works enough that I really hope we dont end up with Marvel levels of market over saturation of his universe with a few dozen mediocre productions and only the occasional rare gem but it wouldnt surprise me if that's where we're headed with this.
Re:Too much (Score:5, Funny)
According to the title the new one's set at Warner Bros, so it seems they couldn't even maintain the basic premise of setting it in Middle Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but Bugs Bunny as the ring bearer with his side kick Porky trying to destroy Yosemite Sam's ring sounds interesting. Though I don't know about Daffy Duck the ranger
Re: (Score:2)
I found:
* The Critical Drinker's analysis, The Rings Of Power - A Billion Dollar Nightmare [youtube.com] and Rings Of Power Finale - The Final Insult [youtube.com],
* Upper Echelon's analysis Absolute GARBAGE - The Rings of Power [youtube.com]
and the older
* Lindsay Ellis' analysis The Hobbit: A Long-Expected Autopsy (Part 1/2) [youtube.com]
reviews to be cathartic for how much they fucked up the TV show and movie. You know modern shows/movies is bad when the reviews are more enjoyable then the source they are reviewing.
There is no point to watching blatant cash g
Re: Too much (Score:5, Funny)
Amazon's outing will be a tough act to follow, Amazon having created the definitive adaptation of Tolkien's work. Still, I'll give Warner a chance. Maybe I'll finally see the black non-binary trans rights activist lesbian Elrond Tolkien created so many years distant.
Perfection (Score:5, Funny)
I didn't think Disney could have been surpassed at improving on original source material after their adaptations of A Wrinkle In Time and Artemis Fowl, but Amazon Studios have managed to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Going to be? (Score:2, Interesting)
There is going to be some LoTR burnout here.
Amazon's already got that in the box.
I do wish they would erase the hobbit trilogy and remake it, though.
Please no. New Zealand can't take another stripping of worker's rights just to appease the Hollywood Hobbits. [stuff.co.nz]
Re:Too much (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Too much (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I avoided the burn-out by not watching more than a couple of episodes of the TV show. It just bored me, I was totally uninterested in the characters and their struggles. Don't care who the guy who fell from the sky is, don't want to wait around for them to slowly figure it out.
If the movies are good I might watch them, but I wasn't all that impressed with the Peter Jackson ones that seem to be considered classics now. While the books have a certain charm, the movies seemed a bit superficial and lacking in t
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, they got a TV show on LoTR?
Glad have not been following up on that. Watched the original trilogy a couple of times, finally just watched the Hobbit trilogy a few months ago (don't really like it all that much), and will wait until all the seasons for the TV show is done before reading up some reviews and deciding if I want to watch it.
Re: (Score:2)
I do wish they would erase the hobbit trilogy and remake it, though.
100 times this. I am a Tolkien fan and loved the LOTR movies. But the Hobbit trilogy is so bad that I coudn't watch the 2nd and 3rd movies even when they were released on streaming/cable. It is a shame to bring down such a wonderful story to a cliché-infested, blockbuster kind of movie.
Re: Too much (Score:2)
Strange (Score:1)
I liked the last movies, which were set in the land of Middle Earth - a magical fantasy kingdom with thousands' of years of history, where the Magical race of white ubermensch were superior to the dirty, evil, lazy, dark Southern and Eastern men in every way. Switching the setting to Warner Brothers seems like it might not work.
Re: Strange (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't see too many White Supremacists tucking up in bed with a nerdy fantasy book in the first place!
If you can't imagine your political opponents enjoying a good read, the picture of them in your head is probably completely wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with your point, I object to LotR being a good read.
To be a good read, I find that there needs to be character progression/development and suspense. Tolkien was really bad at those things.
That should not detract from realizing the value of his work. He did build the foundations for vast amounts of fantasy literature. The ideas he had were great. He just wasn't the best writer, IMO.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither was A. E. Van Vogt, to be honest. But I am willing to let go of simpler writing in exchange for a good story.
What's the matter? (Score:2)
You don't like endless mentions of "glimmering"? Or is it the lack of proportionate "shimmering" that bothers you?
I originally read the LotR trilogy and the Hobbit as translations. Also, as a teenager. Loved the LotR, found Hobbit childish.
Finally got my hands on a copy of Silmarillion (in English) in my twenties. It took me a year to drag myself through it.
What was a fun appendix to the LotR books, full of unexplored treasures and opportunities was expanded into a boring slogfest from hell.
OK, fine, it was
Re: What's the matter? (Score:2)
Re: Strange (Score:2)
Re: Strange (Score:4, Informative)
While I agree with your point, I object to LotR being a good read.
To be a good read, I find that there needs to be character progression/development and suspense. Tolkien was really bad at those things.
That should not detract from realizing the value of his work. He did build the foundations for vast amounts of fantasy literature. The ideas he had were great. He just wasn't the best writer, IMO.
I beg to differ. Consider the progression of Merry and Pippin from the beginning, when they are innocent rustic Hobbits, to "The Scouring of the Shire" when they are soldiers. As for suspense, the whole story was filled with it: who would control the One Ring? How could Helm's Deep be defended? Would the Ringwraths capture Frodo? How can Frodo deal humanely with Saruman in the Shire?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with and support your points, I also object that a story needs character development or suspense to be a good read. Usually I know how a story will end anyway, so there isn't much suspense.
I don't understand. You agree with my points, which describe character development and suspense, yet you say these items are needed in a story. Do you feel that Lord of the Rings does not have character development or suspense?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that LoTR does have character development and suspense. I would further add that even if they didn't have those elements, that would not imply they are a bad story. They are a good story.
One of the virtues of Lord of the Rings, in addition to character development and suspense, is its rich back story. Tolkien sketched out thousands of years of history leading up to the end of the Third Age.
Re: (Score:2)
The suspense wasn't done in a cheap, "thriller novel"-type way. The characters take the entire 6 books to develop, so it's easy for it to slip past you, especially for people who saw the movies first, and are used to seeing the whole quest start to finish in an evening.
It's a very different read than people are used to. You need a different mindset, different mind maybe, to really get it.
Re: (Score:2)
The suspense wasn't done in a cheap, "thriller novel"-type way. The characters take the entire 6 books to develop, so it's easy for it to slip past you, especially for people who saw the movies first, and are used to seeing the whole quest start to finish in an evening.
It's a very different read than people are used to. You need a different mindset, different mind maybe, to really get it.
Perhaps so. I read the book before I saw the movie. The character development that impressed me the most was Merry and Pippin. At the end of the story Toklen contrasts them with Farry Bolger, who had stayed in the Shire. That brought home to me the changes in Merry and Pippin.
Re: Strange (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Recently there has been controversy over Roald Dahl books being modified, but it's actually not the first time it happened. Back in the 1960s when Charlie and the Chocolate Factory came out, the publishers insisted that Dahl change the description of the Umpa Lumpas. Originally he wrote that they were an "African tribe", but it was changed to them being from Umpa Lumpa Land.
I think that change improved the book and likely saved it from a poor reputation. It's what editors are for.
If these great stories can
Re: (Score:2)
We've had Shakespeare plays updated to be set in the modern era, and the originals are still there.
No, they've been remade, and the originals are still there unedited.
Once the author dies, the editing should stop. Write some new books instead of fucking with the old ones because they make you uncomfortable.
Re: (Score:2)
The original LOTR books are still available too. I see no issue with creating new versions of older stories, as the originals are still available.
There are some exceptions, like with Star Wars where the original version was destroyed while creating the various updates, starting back in 1977 when they added the text at the start. That's rarely the case with books though.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The publisher is actually reprinting the originals along side the new ones. Those books are also widely available online, including from the Internet Archive.
Re: (Score:2)
If they let copyright die, then anyone can print new editions of the original material. This re-writing of old books only happens because someone still owns the copyright. They print new editons and OG editions of eg Dr Seuss, Rhoad Dahl, Ian Flemming's James Bond become valuable collectors items because while somone owns the copyright new unabridged copies are not available.
Re: Strange (Score:2)
There's a difference between an editor telling a writer that he needs to modify hos own work and an editor generating content and sticking a writer's name on it without consent or knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
I have bad news for you, that happens all the time, especially when they are dead.
Usually there is a note in the book itself mentioning any significant changes. Trivial stuff like formatting tends to go unmentioned.
Re: Strange (Score:2)
It happens "all the time" with writers like Shakespeare and Aristotle for the simple reason that their works were published in what is essentially prehistory, with multiple copies of questionable provenance floating around.
It happens rather infrequently with modern book publishing. An editor and a writer may go back and forth, spelling errors may be corrected (unless they are deliberate), formatting and typesetting happen automagically, but I don't think you'll find a case where I as a publisher get to put
Re: (Score:2)
Recently there has been controversy over Roald Dahl books being modified, but it's actually not the first time it happened. Back in the 1960s when Charlie and the Chocolate Factory came out, the publishers insisted that Dahl change the description of the Umpa Lumpas. Originally he wrote that they were an "African tribe", but it was changed to them being from Umpa Lumpa Land.
I think that change improved the book and likely saved it from a poor reputation. It's what editors are for.
If these great stories can be updated slightly to have broader appeal then I don't see an issue with that. We've had Shakespeare plays updated to be set in the modern era, and the originals are still there.
At what point does it become a complete rewrite, and have nothing to do with the original story. I used the twin examples of Sapphos and Oduduwa, A lesbian (or at least a person with strong homoerotic leanings, and a African legend.
I take it you approve if her story was rewritten with an male, or if the Oduduwa legend was rewritten with all "white" characters?
When you have respect for the source, you don't have to worry about inconsistencies. I don't even believe in "race", and if I was reduing Oduduwa
Re: (Score:2)
I can't tell you the exact point at which it becomes a complete re-write, but changing less than a dozen words certainly doesn't count.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't tell you the exact point at which it becomes a complete re-write, but changing less than a dozen words certainly doesn't count.
In the beginning, there was a McDonald's, and the McDonald's was with God, and the McDonald's was God.
Now read the rest of the book picturing a pair of Golden Arches in the burning bush, etc.
I'm not saying these rewrites in question are like that — I haven't followed any of the new stuff at all, and I have no idea what they changed — but I wouldn't automatically assume that even small changes to the text of a book can't have huge consequences to the way a movie feels. :-D
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on your purpose going in. Part of what I get out of reading classics is a sense of intrigue at the society, attitudes and communication style of the day. If you want pure entertainment (which movies aim at more than literature) then updating for modern sensibilities is the go, and that's fine as our purpose isn't fixed - we consume a mixture of escapism and high art.
The classics formed today will probably interest future generations precisely because they provide a window into our current time's
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I can't see too many White Supremacists tucking up in bed with a nerdy fantasy book in the first place!
Fascists were into Hobbits before it was cool. [youtube.com]
And they [nytimes.com] still are. [lemonde.fr]
Fantasy by itself is a very lazy, wish-fulfillment genre, inundated by tropes of racial and blood purity, absolute morality values, hierarchies ordained by supernatural powers...
In short, people basing their ideologies on reasoning such as "Because god, blood, race, power, destiny, muscles, testicles... etc." - THEY LOVE FANTASY.
And who can blame them? Who wouldn't love to solve all their life problems with a bit of "A wizard did it." now and
Re: (Score:3)
When a story becomes so beloved but some people find it needs to be rewritten to account for modern sensitivities, should they maybe just try to write their own stories rather than ruining the originals?
This. a million times this. If modern sensibilities require altering characters personalities and changing the story, you leave the old and apparently politically offensive story alone, and forge forth into an inclusive future using the obviously superior writing of modern people with modern sensitivities.
If these folks know better, they should have no problem writing better.
It's such an obvious fantasy trope - light versus dark, but I wonder if it's being taken a bit too literally by sensitive souls?
Y
Re: (Score:2)
When a story becomes so beloved but some people find it needs to be rewritten to account for modern sensitivities, should they maybe just try to write their own stories rather than ruining the originals?
We're not talking about rewriting the original novels.
We're talking about changing how we make future adaptions, a process already responsible for a massive number of changes.
And that's part of the process of adaptions, modifying the work for a different medium and audience.
Remember how Tom Bombadil got yanked from the LOTR movies? He worked fine in the novel, adding a bit of flavour to the world while offering a slow gradual increase in peril. But in the novel he'd be just weird and confusing.
It's such an obvious fantasy trope - light versus dark
Fantasy uses
Re: (Score:2)
Fantasy uses simplified morality, things tend to be either straightforward good or straightforward evil, even moral conflict takes the form of things like temptation (the ring) rather than actual moral conflicts. That's where the light vs dark tropes come from.
That's not fair with Tolkein. By the time of LoTR, things had progressed to where the story of the conflict was largely between good and evil. But not completely: even the Gollum arc was very interesting. Good/evil should have killed him immediately.
For example, the Hobbit has several different sides and points of view, none clearly "correct" (although some were clearly bad).
Even the new Amazon series has quite a bit of ambiguity, with Sauron appearing as a nice guy, and Galadriel appearing as a hot h
Re: (Score:2)
Fantasy uses simplified morality, things tend to be either straightforward good or straightforward evil, even moral conflict takes the form of things like temptation (the ring) rather than actual moral conflicts. That's where the light vs dark tropes come from.
That's not fair with Tolkein. By the time of LoTR, things had progressed to where the story of the conflict was largely between good and evil. But not completely: even the Gollum arc was very interesting. Good/evil should have killed him immediately.
Partially, Gollum, like Sauruman, was a good character who struggled and ultimately fell to temptation.
There was a moral conflict in how to deal with them, but neither were had a defensible morality backing them.
For example, the Hobbit has several different sides and points of view, none clearly "correct" (although some were clearly bad).
True, I there's actually a bit of an interesting continuum when it comes to morality and literature.
Children's books (The Hobbit) often have good guys at odds only for them to eventually realize that they're all ultimately good but just have different perspectives (important lessons for kids).
A bit
Re: (Score:2)
I think Tolkein was amazing in a lot of ways, but I don't think nuanced morality was really part of it.
That's not really true, after all, even Melkor has a place in creation. Even the evil is a reflection of the ultimate good.
Re: (Score:2)
If anything, I can't see too many White Supremacists tucking up in bed with a nerdy fantasy book in the first place!
Have you not used the internet in the last 10 years?
Re: Strange (Score:2)
I can't see too many White Supremacists tucking up in bed with a nerdy fantasy book in the first place!
Thatâ(TM)s basically exactly what happened in Italy. Far right groups are taking lots of it literally and twisting other parts to their needs
Source:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/0... [nytimes.com]
Hobbits and the Hard Right: How Fantasy Inspires Italyâ(TM)s Potential New Leader
Giorgia Meloni, the nationalist politician who is the front-runner to become prime minister, sees âoeThe Lord of the Ringsâ as
Re: (Score:2)
some creative people
Bwahaha, HAHAHA!
They're just as creative as me dropping my daily morning turd.
Re: (Score:2)
You think an Animaniacs version of Lord of the Rings would be a flop? ;)
Personally, I would love to see an adaptation with Yakko, Wakko and Dot in the lead roles. Once. But I wouldn't go and see the Extended Version movie marathon in theatres three times.
Re: (Score:2)
The tower of Orthanc, and the tower of Barad dûr are fearsome. But behold the Water Tower of Warner Brothers!
Re: (Score:2)
So, yeah, pasty-looking people are going to be the protagonists, and probably the antagonists, and most who matter in that story!
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not forget that the white ubermensch vs all others was because the stories were supposed to be an imagined part of Britain's mythology! So, yeah, pasty-looking people are going to be the protagonists, and probably the antagonists, and most who matter in that story!
Don't for a minute think that you aren't a racist.
Pasty looking people, amirite? You know birwhistling for what you call the white race?
You just have a different color skin that you hate.
Race is the ultimate social construct, a thijng that determines who a person is based on their skin color.
This is not to say that there aren't a lot of racists around - like you for instance.
Re: (Score:2)
Bored of the Rings (Score:2)
Any obstacle to turning that Harvard Lampoon parody into a film?
I'll guess that the opportunity to preclude that from happening was when it was put into print. Parody is protected, and doubly so, I imagine, once it already exists. The unplumbed pockets of TLOTR franchise might want to spike making the parody into a film, and it would be interesting to see what legal justification that would involve.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Oh, if the kind of creative talent that brought Airplane! into existence coul
Re: (Score:2)
Any obstacle to turning that Harvard Lampoon parody into a film?
Too soggy and hard to light.
Re: (Score:2)
Any obstacle to turning that Harvard Lampoon parody into a film?
I'll guess that the opportunity to preclude that from happening was when it was put into print. Parody is protected, and doubly so, I imagine, once it already exists. The unplumbed pockets of TLOTR franchise might want to spike making the parody into a film, and it would be interesting to see what legal justification that would involve.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Oh, if the kind of creative talent that brought Airplane! into existence could be brought to bear on that, it could be epic, lol. ;)
A parody is not a reboot, turning all characters into politically inspired "modern sensibility". It's satire and humor.
I recall good old Dildo Faggins, IIRC. Of course, modern sensitivities would never allow such a sexist name to exist.
These reboots are warming an existing IP into something that more resembles the characters into a strict worldview that is politically correct for they way they believe the world has to conform to.
Amazon cleared the way (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Black Elves are as ridiculous as tall dwarves or Sauron being openly gay.
Sauron being openly gay would be dumb because it would make him more human. Tall dwarves I'm with you on, unless their exceptional height is somehow relevant, like... bullroarer? I don't remember which forebear hobbit it was who was supposed to have been almost man-height. But Black Elves? Irrelevant. Having them exist harms nothing because there's no later works for them to cause problems with.
I would, however, rather see something new created than endless dicking about with classics in order to make them
Re: (Score:3)
Amazon did an expensive experiment that proved that most readers of such beloved fiction have a very definite idea of what characters in books look like. Black Elves are as ridiculous as tall dwarves or Sauron being openly gay. Authors can make other series and invent their own fantasy races - just don't touch well established 'rules'
Shucks - I was hoping for a reboot of Little Women and Steel Magnolias with all male cast. And The Color Purple with all white shemale little people cast. Along with a hearty change in the new character's personalities.
I'm certain that the same people who like the Rings of Power story would applaud this, and hold it up as brave and stunning.
I mean if we have every right to disrespect the source material of Tolkien's Nordic fantasy series, it only follows that disrespect of IP is a very good thing.
Ah
It can only be better (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of hard to make emptiness shine.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't seen the Amazon version, or even the entire Peter Jackson version for that matter, but the book was very much "empty" in terms of being low on action, high on walking, and lore. (Very different in tone from The Hobbit which was explicitly written for children and action-oriented.)
I immediately loved The Hobbit as a teenager, but I didn't really get LOTR. Coming back to it 10 years later with a more mature mindset and really bathing in the scenery was much more enjoyable.
Re: (Score:2)
Rights to just LotR and Hobbit again? Oh boy... (Score:2)
So, it's either going to be a bad reboot, or more fan fiction maaaybe better than Amazon's one (very low bar to surpass)
Nope. Just nope. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The main reason? It's much easier to milk a beloved franchise, even though the products suck.
Between a bad rewrite of something famous and a bad fresh creation, which one would you think makes more money? My bet is on the former.
My question is> what happens when they run out?
It's worse than that (Score:2)
We are currently experiencing a 'golden age' of expenditure on new content for streaming services. Despite that they are still failing, on the whole, to put on the screen the many SF classics that would transfer well. Before very long - and the deficit at DisneyPlus is the warning of this - the money will dry up for significantly new material.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean "run out"? They'll just start repeating the cycle from oldest remakes to newer ones and keep messing things up in the name of "political climate". I rather rewatch older films, honestly. It's become increasingly hard to find something worth watching these days as the "political climate" has ruined every trace of creativity. Comedy suffers especially.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not only "socio-political climate" forcing creative people to make crap entertainment, but also creative people being a product of the type of mentality.
In other words, it's not that they are not allowed to express unshackled creativity. They just can't.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not only "socio-political climate" forcing creative people to make crap entertainment, but also creative people being a product of the type of mentality. In other words, it's not that they are not allowed to express unshackled creativity. They just can't.
This. So much this. The story lines coming out show little ability to tell a good story. At all.
And for those of us who aren't in the arts, creativity is not about being able to make any choice. It's about working within boundaries.
Boundaries force creativity, no boundaries destroy it.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of revisiting movie franchises that have already been done and are, quite frankly, probably still fairly fresh in the minds of people who were over the age of about 25 or 30 by the turn of this century, why don't movie companies instead focus their efforts on making new and original content?
The talent is not there. Many of these so called writers have no idea how to craft a story. It is like they are trying to break the rules, but have no idea what the rules are. Another is that despite the extreme liberal approach of Actors and writers, the producers are become very conservative and afraid to experiment with anything new. But that rule thing..
There are actually rules of storytelling that need to be attended. It isn't that much different than art forms like painting and photography. Composi
The moving tale of Sam's mayorship (Score:2)
Oh god yet another remake. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What happened to original content? I wonder if this crap will also be subject to the woke test.
It will.
The issue with the woke test is that those who demand strict adherence don't often go to the movies or watch the show. So while they might demand that all the boxes be checked, they don't often support that which they demand conform to their dictates
Re: (Score:2)
>"What happened to original content? I wonder if this crap will also be subject to the woke test."
Oh, I expect it will be. Gotta check all those boxes, except the box office ones.
What really needs to be made... (Score:2)
That, or "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil."
Re: (Score:2)
What really needs to be made is an adaptation of Harvard Lampoon's "Bored of the Rings." That, or "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil."
A Bombadil story would be great. A lot of us are intrigued by his and Goldberry's characters. And there isn't much canon, so a lot of spectulation might be made. Another thing that might be interesting for the nerds among us would be some treatment of Radagast the Brown.
Ease up on the CGI (Score:2)
LOTR was good IMO, The Hobbit on the other hand went so overboard with the CGI that it ruined the films. Characters defy physics as if someone typed in a noclip cheat code.
Starting to appreciate more and more people like Chris Nolan and Tom Cruise that bring realism to movies.
Re: (Score:2)
LOTR had only a few cheesetacular moments, overall it was pretty good and relatively faithful (Except the whole Faramir thing, fail fail.) As you say, the Hobbit was a farcefest. And it only needed to be that because they were chasing money, and made the remake at least half again longer than it needed to be so they could make more pictures. Greed ruins everything.
Please make it stop (Score:5, Interesting)
Tolkien is cursed to have his work bastardised into mulch by multinational corporations. How lucky we are to have IP laws that prevent anyone who gives a shit about the work making their own movie and showing up the garbage that Jackson and Amazon have produced for what it is.
Hollywood flips a coin and goes with ... (Score:2)
... one of the only two ideas they've had for the past couple of decades:
Do these geniuses ever stop to wonder why attendance at movie theaters has been dropping over the years? Nope, sorry, it wasn't COVID (though that didn't help). It's the crap movies.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, being risk-averse in a business that critically depends on creativity is a sure way to ruin things long-term. The same problem can be observed with some game publishers.
More big business screwing over labour rights (Score:2)
And somehow, I do not care (Score:2)
I read The Hobbit and the LOTR trilogy several times. I saw one movie with my mother and my sister (2nd one of LOTR) and apart from some nice visuals, it left me unimpressed. There is just wayyyy too much missing and a lot of the atmosphere of the books is not captured.
Forget LoTR. Continue "The Expanse" (Score:2)
Make 'em shorter (Score:2)
Creative control vs. money are like church & s (Score:2)
Books (Score:2)
Concerning quote (Score:2)
I was asking: "why fix something that was not broken?", but it looks like they want to "explore" the universe.
Pro tip: Most of the good parts have already been explored.
The LoTR t
Re: (Score:2)
>The Amazon series... we don't speak about the series.
Do I think cross-race casting of non-human races was a mistake? Yep. They're not humans, they shouldn't have the same racial groups as us. This isn't a problem with races that are piled under heavy prosthetic makeup, but with those where it's plainly obvious it's a stupid choice.
It would have been better to modify all the elves and dwarves so they looked less human, and in the process create their own set of racial features (including skin tone) di
Fan fiction (Score:2)
Fanfic with a lot of money behind it but fanfic nonetheless