What would you like to see in Warner Bros. new movies?
 

The question is in the title! I am assuming that their rights are to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. If it is otherwise, do let me know. Anyway, my thoughts.

I think Warner Bros. should stick to more obscure things. What movie ever stayed true to it's book, so if they are going to leave the path of canon anyway, it might as well be with things that are open to interpretation. For example, they might try something with the Beornings/Skinchangers. Or the battle of Greenfields. I know they would want recognizable names to lure in non-nerds but, surely "Middle Earth" and "From the world of Tolkien" would do the trick. I think it would sting less if they exercise their "creativity" on something only vaguely described. Which would be difficult, I grant. It is Tolkien we are talking about after all. No one can complain that his works (in general) lack description. But they should embrace a challenge like that, rather than "dumbing down" his most detailed writings for mass consumption on the big screen. What do others think?

This is actually a good question.

Amazon has rights to the appendices and has generally staked out the Second Age. Neither Amazon nor Warner Brothers has rights to the Silmarillion and its UT and HoME progeny. This seems to leave the Third Age to Warner Brothers. Warner Brothers is already working on The War of the Rohirrim, due for release in 2024. What is left?

Maybe Warner Brothers will target some aspect of the history of Arnor and the war with Angmar? Or they could flesh out something referred to only in passing, like Scatha the worm? An interesting candidate might be the war between the Dwarves and the Orcs? I'm not sure what I would want to see produced, myself... I wasn't happy with The Hobbit and the jury is out on Rings of Power...

Well, this is news to me! I didn't even know that Warner Bros. was making a new Tolkien based movie. I'm looking forward to learning more about it! :)

Here are some links with information about it for you, Mae. :)

http://https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://variety.com/2023/film/news/lord-of-the-rings-new-movies-warner-bros-1235533672/&ved=2ahUKEwjbkvjpzpaAAxXZk2oFHdARAZQQFnoECA4QAQ&u sg=AOvVaw3WU876iamxicw-wgq68Tmd

http://https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://ew.com/movies/warner-bros-announces-new-lord-of-the-rings-movies/&ved=2ahUKEwjbkvjpzpaAAxXZk2oFHdARAZQQFnoECCoQAQ&u sg=AOvVaw3u6cuEaWEPzW82zTjZUoEt

Sorry they're so long, I don't know how to shorten them like other people.

Thanks Alasse!
I am looking forward to seeing what they do with it.

You mean like this?
1) Copy link address
2) Highlight the word(s) in your message you'd like to link
3) Click on the "Insert Link" button above the box you're writing your post in (looks like a little blue globe with a chain link)
4) a little box pops up, paste your link address there, click "OK"
Done!


OT: Whatever they choose to treat, what I mostly would like to see is respect for the source.

Yes, that! Thank you! :)

So on the one hand, I think the biggest movie potential is Middle-earth: The Fall of Kings - the fall of Arthedain and the severing of the line of kings in Gondor. I plotted the whole thing out once, but it's lost in a badly-tagged Livejournal, so I have to go on memory. The first part is a political love triangle - Prince Arvedui of Arthedain, Firiel princess of Gondor, and Earnil the Gondorian general. It all leads into the Disaster of the Morannon, the death of the Gondorian royal family and Arvedui's attempt to claim the throne.

The second part is the fall of Arthedain, which has great name recognition potential: there are canonically Hobbits at Fornost, the enemy is the Witch-King, Elrond is in play, and Gandalf is present in Middle-earth to use. This part ends with Arvedui's death, and Earnil's defeat of Angmar, probably intercut. Then the third part is the Gondorian coda: first Earnil, then his son riding to face the Witch-King in Morgul Vale and never returning. Quite where you split the three up I'm not sure about, but seriously, if WarnArda takes off I'd be surprised if they didn't do it.

On the other hand, what I most want to see is them taking advantage of the fact that they have the rights to the Shire. Stuff High Fantasy - I want a movie about Belladonna Took going on Hobbit-scale adventures. Call it Remarkable. You can even tie it back to Fall of Kings, by sending her up to the ruins of King's Norbury.

hS

I really like the idea of The Fall of Kings! It would great to see something like that done properly.

And I agree, there are so many "little things" they could explore, such as Belladonna Took.

Forget those fairy-blooded Took miscreants who go wandering off to Norbury and foreign parts! I want a full-blown intra-Shire drama (like Downton Abbey with lower ceilings and more eating)--give me a prestige mini-series about the death of Lalia the Fat!

Now there's an idea! :D

There is another element that should be considered, though it does not specifically relate to what I or any other member here might "like to see." This element is, for better or worse, what Warner Brothers might believe a fan, and specifically a casual fan rather than an aficionado, might prefer to see. In other words, what is commercially desirable?

We see this issue in Rings of Power. There is no specific, lore-based, reason to include Hobbits in the story of the making of the Rings and the rise of Sauron. Hobbits were not part of the tale. Indeed, LoTR makes it clear that Hobbits flew under everyone's radar until late in the Third Age. They were included because the showrunners and Amazon wanted Hobbits in the series for commercial reasons. We also see this in Jackson's version of The Hobbit. Elves had a minor role in the story, as written. But the movies "had" to include Galadriel, Legolas and Tauriel.

So, Warner Brother's decisions regarding what subject matter to use, will heavily consider what they believe the casual fan will want to see. This might include Hobbits, Elves, dragons, Balrogs, Blue Wizards and who knows what else...

Perhaps then they'll bring back the sandworms from Arrakis that were used in The Hobbit film, and thus garner attention from fans of the hugely popular Dune movie franchise. "Tell me of your homeworld, Estel."

I suppose then it simply becomes a question of target audience. Sadly, the chances of Downers being a representative target group are next to nothing. However, there are more "shades" to Tolkien fans. The movie franchise has its own set of fans. Would Warner Bros rely on "movie canon" in any way? Considering the vast influence this franchise has on the collective image of certain concepts, undoubtedly there will be bleedthrough. But would WB purposefully stick by certain concepts or images introduced in the movies? Would they try to guess what the average movie fan would like to see, and preserve the movie continuity / recognizability? Would they attempt to preserve recognizability with the Amazon show?

It's a fine can of worms, trying to guess what goes on in the planning stages of the movie industry.

Quite so, quite so.



I think they really ought to stay away from any association with Amazon's series. They can gamble on the hope that RoP will be a some sort of big hit (the chance of this is all but gone, I think) and then absorb fans, publicity, and etc. from it, but that would be wistful thinking. It seems far more likely that the animosity which they would gain from such a course would far outweigh any advantages. They are better off succeeding -or failing- by their own merit.

What would I like to see in Warner Bros. new movies?

Nothing. I wish they would keep their pin heads and grasping claws off of Tolkien's world.

I feel that way after I see the end result.

I find that, before seeing it, I am still hopeful in spite of myself, even though I still know deep down that they shall merely do what movies always do.

Afterall, why would Warner Bros. be some sort of great exception?

But I may as well take the pleasure from it that I can, which is, essentially, saying to myself (and anyone who happens to read it) "Wouldn't it be nice if they...".

My view is that nobody but Tolkien can write Tolkien.

Consider this analogy: a composer today succeeds in writing imitation Mozart which is such an expert pastiche one can hardly tell the difference (although I doubt Mozart's sublimity could ever be reproduced). But in that case, wouldn't we want a composer that talented writing his own stuff, not imitating? Similarly, if there exists (which I doubt) a screenwriter of the awesome talent required to adapt Tolkien well, then his talent is wasted on adaptation.

That is well put, and I quite agree.

But while the adaptations fall ever short of their source material, Peter Jackson's movies hold a special place in my heart for being my first taste of Tolkien, however tainted it might have been. I suppose my feelings toward them might be quite different had I read the books first. For instance, I did read The Silmarillion before seeing Rings of Power (I know they don't technically have the rights to The Sil., but they are dealing with things covered in The Sil.) and I surely bear no love for it. Then I ask myself how RoP is different from PJ's movies, and I don't have a very good answer (other than that I far prefer the effects and writing in the movies; some of RoP is downright "cringey", and you certainly couldn't tell that it has a billion dollar budget if you didn't know). So, I guess it's just a bit of favouritism on my part.

In the end nothing can hold a candle to the original work, but somehow I like P.J.'s movies anyway.

In great part it's because Jackson had an affection and respect for the originals, even if I think he misunderstood some things, oversimplified others, and occasionally indulged his old horror-film instincts (too many jump scares, gratuitous water zombies). Whereas the writers of ROP do not appear remotely to understand what they are working with, and certainly have no respect for it, often revealing naked contempt for the original.. because in their twenty-something conceit, they think they "know better" than some awful old Edwardian Catholic how his world ought to work. (Also, they have no talent; there is better dialogue in a Transformers movie).

I have nothing to add, except that I really agree with every bit of that.