Subject for the Second film?
 

In a 2004 press statement New Line had said that they had the rights to make two Middle Earth films: One based on the Hobbit and the other an independent sequel/prequel 'drawn from footnotes and appendices'. Right now the plan for this second unnamd prequel seems to be a film on the White Council/Necromancer and other events between the Hobbit and LOTR. But in my opinion this oppurtunity can be better used for telling other stories of Middle Earth. What if PJ just included the White Council parts in the Hobbit film and used the other film for something like the War of the Last Alliance or the Fall of Arnor? Any suggestions for which stories you would want depicted?

Since they have the rights to the Appendicies, this is the film I want to see

- Feanor is shown to be the greatest of the Eldar making the Silmarils filling them with the radiance of the Two Trees
- Morgoth stealing the Silmarils
-Morgoth destroying the Two Trees by poisoning them
- Morgoth retreating to his great fortress of Thangorodrim with the Silmarils
- Feanor leading his people into exile
- War between the Eldar and Edain against Morgoth and his forces
- the defeat of the Eldar and Edain
- the union of Beren and Luthien and their lineage
-Beren and Luthien steal a Silmaril from the Iron Crown of Morgoth
-Luthien becomes mortal and gives birth to Dior
-the city of Gondolin with Turgon as its king
-the wedding of Earendil to Elwing
-the overthrow of Morgoth
-the ship of Earendil is set into the heavens

Now that is an epic!!!!!

Jackson has stated that his plan for the second movie is the period post Hobbit & pre-LotR. That's what the audience want. The first age stuff is not under consideration as far as I'm aware. Just because they could put together a 'FA' movie doesn't mean they'd want to.

No, no...I'd agree with davem. I think their time would be better spent doing stuff between the Hobbit and LotR and not meddling with first age stuff. Besides, all that would take hours and hours and a whole 'nother 12-hour, three movie film.

I think he could spend his time in the second movie showing the progress of the dwarves... perhaps following the lives of the company. Balin, for instance, went off to Moria - a sequence touched upon in LotR by finding his tomb, and one promising to be very interesting with the Watcher in the Water and tons of orcs, and even a sight of the Balrog, no doubt.

Also, he could have the beginning of Aragorn's love story!

Gollum could be drawn out of the caves and brought to the world of the living and so could have an interesting story thread of his own...

The possibilties are many, you know.

davem and Folwren ... of course you both are totally correct in that is what the public wants and that is what Jackson will give them. Its a very smart business decision.

My post was a direct response to the question asked by zxcvbn of what stories I want to see out of the Appendicies. Perhaps those should be left the a third cycle of films - #6, 7 and 8?

As GK Chesterton said: "To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it."

Or to put it another way Zaentz/Jackson may have the legal right to use such material, but they'd be pushing it - & they might just find that if someone was to follow CT who was a bit more open to selling the movie rights to The Sil writings he or she might decide they'd blotted their copybook by making such a pseudo-Sil movie (in short, I don't know whether Adam Tolkien is as opposed to more movies as his father is....)

No-one can say that 5 or 10 years (or less) from now the rights to the Sil won't be up for grabs - do you really think approaches haven't been made? The 'official' version was that legal disputes would mean The Hobbit would never reach the screen. Then it was Jackson would never be involved. Now its The Sil rights will NEVER be sold. JRRT was willing to sell the movie rights to his work CT is not. Those who inherit the rights may be - its impossible to tell. So, that being the case, do you really think Zaentz or Jackson is going to risk annoying the rights holders by knocking up a script based on a few scraps in Appendix A if they thereby find themselves excluded from being able to buy movie rights to all Tolkien's other stuff?

davem --- you make an excellent case for waiting the situation out. I would guess the cycle of the next two films would take up the five years or so that you mentioned in your post. It would also give the filmmakers and rights holders (since those rights should revert to Zaentz before that unless he works out an extension) time to gauge the success of both the HOBBIT film and the bridge film. If they take in the hoped for lotery prize of $2 billion US then serious consideration could commence about another return to Middle-earth.

I certainly cannot argue with your logic.

However one can't exclude the possibility of the 'Bridge' film tanking. Part audience fatigue, but largely because I've seen no evidence at all that Jackson is capable of inventing remotely acceptable fan-fic: those portions of the LR trilogy which were any good were good as a direct function of the proportion of actual Tolkien therein. Conversely, those elements created out of whole cloth pretty uniformly sucked. I suspect that this 'bridge' movie will be as lame as Eragon.

PJ's name is not automatic boxoffice magic: vide King Kong.

Adam Tolkien is not opposed to movies of his grandfather's works:

And he can even joke about his father's opposition:

And the publisher hasn't ruled out the possibility of selling the CoH rights.
All of which proves precisely nothing. What we do know is that CT was annoyed by the Jackson movies & is unlikely to sell any further rights, but that Adam seems less antagonistic - he is perfectly prepared to wait & see how the Hobbit movies turn out.

My own feeling is that a decision on what happens to the movie rights may depend far more on what we see in 2010/11 than many think. If the movies are respectful & Jackson can avoid his worst excesses then maybe movie makers may have access to more than the synopsis in Appendix A.

I think in naming both of the upcoming 2 movies the filmakers will want to "cash in" on the brand name recognition of "The Hobbit" - so I wonder what the name of the second proposed film will be (if the first is called The Hobbit)?

For The Lord of the Rings movies, name recognition no doubt played a huge role in getting people to buy tickets. For example, my wife has never read LOTR, but still recognized the name. Such name recognition in a way made the Lord of the Rings movies famous before they ever came out. The same would be true for a movie named "The Hobbit".

If movies were ever made based on the Silmarillion, I don't think using that name would have the same level of name recognition among the masses. New Line-Jackson probably would realize this, and if so wouldn't use that name for a movie.

Maybe they will just call all of their movies "The Lord of the Rings" as the primary title, with a smaller subtitle as they have done so far.

from Galendor

Are you saying that LOTR would be an overaching title like STAR WARS? If that is what you are suggesting it makes very good marketting sense but I imagine might be ripped by some since HOBBIT and the bridge film are not part of the storyline of LOTR. But I do like the idea and think it makes great sense as a way of unifying the Middle-earth pictures under one franchise name.

Is the name MIDDLE-EARTH somehow a possible franchise name with recognition and appeal?

Oh, yeah. Iron Crown Enterprises sold a lot of titles under the name Middle-earth Roleplaying System (MERPS) before Zaentz yanked their license. Even in movie tie-in games, we get titles like "Battle for Middle-earth."

CT's no-sale position long, long predated Peter Jackson. If it wasn't lifelong, then the Rankin-Bass Hobbit was surely enough to cause it!

Remember also that even assuming Adam replaces his father on the board, he's only one director out of three; and Baillie and Michael George are two decades younger than Christopher and so likely to be around for a while yet.

One might also want to parse some othe Adam T statements. Interviewed at the CoH launch:

And from the Estae website (which is in fact Adam):

Yes, that is what I was suggesting. But you are right, it might not be possible to do so for the reasons you gave.

Galendor - keep in mind I am agreeing in principle with your idea. I think it has real possibilities if they only need to work the Lord of the Rings idea (Sauron and the Ring) into all the other films. With HOBBIT its easy since that central anyways - well not Sauron so much but the Ring sure is. Clever writers will find a way if that is what they want to do.

As I said, those statements from Adam that I gave prove nothing at all - except that Adam is not completely opposed to the existence of movies. Personally speaking I have no desire to see any more Tolkien movies like the LotR farrago (yes, StW, that's my opinion).

Even assuming that Bailie & Michael George follow CT's wishes that doesn't translate to never - in fact, while my life will remain perfectly complete & fulfilled without ever seeing another Tolkien movie, I can't see that objecting to any movie adaptation on principle is admirable - anymore than the medieval Church's objection to the printing of Bibles. Yes, the books are great art, but cinema may produce great art too. That's why I say that a lot will depend on what we see on screen in 2010. Its not impossible that CT could have liked a movie adaptation of LotR - unfortunately the one he saw was Jacksons. What if he'd actually liked it (ie if it had been of sufficient quality)? I'm assuming that he went with an open mind. Also he was quite happy to contribute to the BBC radio adaptation of LotR, to the extent of being sent the script for approval & recording a cassette of pronunciations. This alone says to me that he is not totally opposed to dramatisation of his father's works.

All I'm arguing is 'never say never' - given the right circumstances, & I wouldn't be shocked if the film rights to Tolkien's other writings were sold in the not too distant future - though at the same time I'm not expecting an announcement next week...

Interesting you should bring that up: remember, CT's press release said he thought his father's writing unsuitable for visual dramatic adaptation. Why this should be an important distinction I haven't been told: it may relate to the strictures JRRT gives in On Fairy-Stories; but it might well relate to the fact that a radio-play is still a medium based on words.

Somebody here - perhaps davem or WCH - told a story a while back about JRRT himself attending a school play of THE HOBBIT. If I remember right, Tolkien beamed broad smiles when they they kept exactly to a scene or some bit of dialogue but became displeased and agitated whenever they deviated in any way. I guess that speaks volumes as why Hollywood is loathe to give authors anything approaching control when their work is translated from print to film.

Maybe that is why he enjoyed the radio production so much. Things do not have to be so heavily cut given that you have much more time and can serialize things over weeks or months. On the radio you can have a narrator which is much closer to a book. And this is just a guess on my part - but I bet its much cheaper to use the book as a script where possible given that you save money from writers having to rewrite anything.

I have a feeling that given this choice

Film A - very loyal in both script and spirit to Tolkien almost to the point of slavishness. At the box office it barely makes it money back and people find it too long with too many talking heads and dull parts.

Film B - Jackson action treatment with Jackson big box office results.

I tend to think that both JRRT and CT would vote loudly and often for the A choice.

Still the same old strawman.....

It is entirely possible to make a successful, dramatic, exciting adaptation of the LR (w/o 'too many talking heads and dull parts') without resorting to PJ's distortions and crudities- and above all, PJ's total cluelessness. Personally I would love to see such a film. It's the film I was waiting to see back in 2000-01. Boy, was I disappointed.

And also speaks volumes about the lack of interest the Estate would have in your 'collaboration' proposal- technically they might have some representative on set, but his presence would be meaningless since the director can ignore him at will. So under the deal you are proposing, the Estate would give up rights they own without getting anything in return.

Incidentally, Jo Rowling's creative control doesn't seem to have hurt the HP films' boxoffice.

The radio series took 13 hours - about the same time as the SEE of LotR, so they had the same time. The real problem with the movies was that the writers were convinced they could improve on Tolkien's work.

I have always been taught that if something is being decided that is going to have some impact on you that it is always a good thing to have a seat at that table and have some input, to be able to make your case. That is much better than hearing about it afterwards from people who did not even bother to hear you out.

My idea - of both parties sitting down- with the Estate getting an adviser on set and the rights holders getting the right to take what is in the Appendicies and expand it in line with what is in other JRRT sources for accuracy - is not perfect. But what is?

Rowling is a living author who was red hot and at the top of her game when she sold those rights. You can hardly compare her position with that of JRRT in the late 1960's. Yes, his books had something of a following - but he was hardly in the position of Rowling. ANd besides, JRRT himself decided in favor of money over Art. That was his choice free and clear.

My idea would give the Estate a seat at the table, a voice when the writing and filming was done. It would not give them control but it would allow them to give advice, make a case, work with the writers and others to come up with alternatives to things like Osgiliath, beating of Gollum, and other things that drive purists crazy.

Perhaps I believe too much in people. I tend to believe that when peope of fair mind and good intention work together, better things happen than when they do not.

In this world very few people end up like Rowling with the ability to dictate the menu, help cook the food, dictate how it is served, and then get the head seat at the banquet table. That is rare and does not come along too often even for the best of us.

In the LOTR films the Estate had exactly zero input. Their thought, feelings, suggestions, objections, were never known or made known because all the movies were made without them being there in any way shape or form.

Again, I do think it comes back to that skit on Da Ali G Show where Sasha Baron Cohen as Ali G proposes a deal to a prospective book publisher "Hey, you know about those LOTR movies? Get this..... LOTR... the books!!! The movies made lots of money, the books can too". Or something like that.

In the minds of the worldwide public, the LOTR is both the books and the movies, or even just the movies since more people bought tickets to those than have bought the books over the last fifty years. For better or worse, they are linked together in a symbiotic relationship. They may not be one, but they sure are twisted together in many people minds.

This situation is going to go on for at least five more years with the next two films and perhaps longer. In fact, that intermeshing is only going to get stronger because now you will have five films over ten years instead of three over five years.

Giving an expert selected by the Estate a seat at the production meetings in all phases of production would be a very good thing in taking a step towards a more authentic Middle-earth.

The only interest studios have is in The Sil & CoH. That would allow them to knock out a trilogy based around the Three Great Tales, with background material from the history (ie a Beren & Luthien movie would bring in Valinor & the creation & theft of the Silmarils, CoH would bring in the Noldorin rebellion & the death of the Trees & a Gondolin story would complete the trilogy with the war of wrath & the fall of Melkor.

I think the real incentive for the Estate to sell the rights is that it will liberate them from constant hassle, & accusations of mean spiritedness from movie 'fans'. They should offer up the film rights including a veto for anything that they find grossly unacceptable, let the movies be made & then, hopefully, we can forget all this nonsense & get back to Tolkien the writer.

That has my vote. Let me rush out and pour a nice tall cool glass of milk so I can drink to that. Its amazing what rational minds can do when everyone is in a win win position. :)

I agree in principle, but the Tolkien Estate probably realized "in for a penny, in for a pound" and kept their distance from Jackson's movies for such a reason. Imagine what could/would happen if they agreed to be impotent "advisors" on the future The Hobbit movies. Jackson apparently wants these movies to directly tie in to his LOTR movies - I believe he will be motivated to include characters such as his Legolas, Arwen, Elrond, and Aragorn.

So imagine a worse-case scenario where Jackson is planning the death of Smaug. Who is this "Bard" character he asks - he has little use in MY movies! My audience wants to see Orlando Bloom as Legolas! He has "star power". It would be better if he killed Smaug - Legolas can ride in standing on the back of an eagle, do a death defying aerial leap onto Smaug's head, and deliver his signature triple-point-blank arrows into the head kill-shot! The Tolkien Estate "advisors" might cry no, you cannot do this. But Jackson could counter by saying this is best for my movies and my main audience, since they love movie Legolas. And there would be nothing the Tolkien Estate could do to stop it.

Then, no doubt, New Line and Jackson would still tout the fact that the movies were made with direct consultation from the Tolkien Estate, who would be ashamed of their pointless involvement.

STW, do you think Jackson is "of fair mind and good intention" in regards to these movies? He may have good intentions, I do not doubt it, but surely his primary intention is to make money, and have these future films serve as prequel vehicles to his LOTR movies. These intentions may cause him to take liberties with The Hobbit and LOTR book appendices that the Tolkien Estate would not approve of. So I can understand why they would simply not want any part in the creation of the movies.

Galendor ... I cannot argue with the scenario you present and I guess anything is possible when money is involved. Perhaps I am trusting far too much in the fact that everyone - in the end- wants what will be best for the public. And I guess that both sides could see than very differently.

I am not a genius and my ideas are not perfect (as others keep pointing out) but I would hope something can be done that would be a win win situation for both the Tolkien Estate concerns and film rights holders.

Having an Tolkien expert in on the film process cannot be a bad thing.... can it?
Having accuracy and more complete detail of those bridge events hinted at in the Appendicies but dealt more fully elsewhere cannot be a bad thing ... can it?

I am feeling like Rodney King asking "why can't we all just get along". Well, peace on Middle-earth and good will to Men...
and Elves ....
and Dwarves ....
okay... Orcs too.

[QUOTE=Sauron the White;540402]
STW, I agree of course, having a Tolkien expert in the film process cannot be a bad thing! But since it is understandable that the Tolkien Estate would not want that position, I nominate you, William Cloud Hickli, davem, and alatar. Just think of the arguments (and jokes from alatar) that would occur on the set. Jackson would have to hold his head in his hands or just run and hide.

I'm no genius either, but I have a suspicion that Jackson started out with great intentions of faithfulness to Tolkien, and that may be why many of us have fewer problems with the FOTR movie. But as the years passed, his own vision of the tone and substance of the movies became stronger - and understandably so. After all, he was immersed in it for years. And each time his 'version' of LOTR was presented to the public, he was strongly rewarded at the box office and with film awards. Now I suspect he feels more or less fully affirmed in his right to make alterations to the tone and substance of Tolkien's stories. And the vast majority of movie-goers having no interest in the books might agree. Action movies with moments of seriousness punctuated with base humor and a soundtrack designed to tell the audience how it should feel at any given moment seem to be quite popular. Being more of a pessimist, I fear we "purists" may be in for some disappointments in the future Hobbit movies due to Jackson's affirmation as a visionary of Middle Earth. But most moviegoers won't be disappointed.

All I'm looking for is movies that aren't aimed at the American Pie audience & manage to display some respect for the material. And the reason I want this is that I want the whole movie nonsense consigned to history. I think, if the two forthcoming movies are both successful & respectful of Tolkien's work the Estate may decide to unload the movie rights & move on - & that's more of a probably than a possibly once CT has passed on.

Personally, I have no problem with movies of Tolkien's works - though they won't ever equal the books - I just have a problem with silly or offensive adaptations. I think CoH could make a great movie, but I'm not sure the dark, ultimately bleak nature of the story would appeal to an audience without a tacked-on happy ending of some kind.

Anyway, the adaptation I want to see is an animated Smith of Wooton Major in the style of the Pauline Baynes illustrations.

You're right, this 'bridge' film is very risky indeed. Much of the audience of LotR will have been made up with people who couldn't/wouldn't read the books ("Long buks iz 2 ard 4 uz 2day" or "I haven't got time to read Tolkien. Reading long books cuts into my time watching four hours of soaps a day" and all that). That may hold up a little for The Hobbit but a lot of people won't be bothered by a bridging film if they know it's "all made up". And if Fran Walsh and Peter Jackson are involved with the script then I really don't hold out much hope as they are not good at creating narrative, and that's what holds any story, whether written or visual, together.

Of course they could just go for something which was just an "Art" film, which would negate the need for a narrative structure ;)

PJ *did* have a 'Tolkien expert' on set. Many of them, starting with Philippa Boyens and going on through many or most of the nerds at Weta, and eventually including McKellen, who came late to the books but became a total convert.

That didn't matter. If PJ isn't interested in 'accuracy' the availability of expertise is irrelevant.

StW has pointed out that more people have seen the movies in five years than read the books in fifty. Sad, but true. I'm afraid that as a result Jackson's ego has grown in proportion. "Tolkien's tale was long and boring. I think I did better." Although he's a savvy enough businessman to appeal to/ appease the 'fans', at this point it's Peter Jackson fans rather than Tolkien fans: the monstrous success of the trilogy simply ratifies, in his mind, his self-indulgences. I expect were any 'expert' to be provided, PJ's attitude would be much the same as StW and others: "What the hell do you know about making movies?"

i would like to point out that many of the radical changes in the plot can be credited to Fran Walsh and the 'Tolkien expert' Phillipa Boyens, who handled most of the script writing. And as much as I like the LOTR films, I hope Boyens is unable to collaborate on the Hobbit script and PJ gets his friend Steven Sinclair instead.

That is certainly a very blunt way of putting it. And it could turn out that way. My take on this is yes, you can be a Tolkien expert and not know beans about the process of film and how they make them and what the demands are. That is undeniable. During the first trilogy of films, Jackson and company learned something about Middle-earth. They probably did not learn enough to make it perfect. But it looks like they learned enough to earn enough and please the public.

I would hope the second time around they could improve on that record and go a little further in making the films more authentic. People here seem to think that I apologize for everything Jackson did in the films and am ignorant of the books.
Not so. I have read them many many times since my first effort way back in 1971. I love those books. And I can watch the films and cringe at things like the scrubbing bubbles of the Dead and kicking the pathetic behind of Gollum or making jokes about bodily gasses. Believe me folks, I sure wish none of that were in there.

I do get tired of rehashing all the same tired disputes year after year. But I still engage in them. Just canot resist the lure of the ring I guess. It would be nice if this next batch of films did not repeat that pattern. Do any of us want to be doing this over and over again five and ten years from now? One way to prevent that and have something we all can be proud of would be to have an expert from the Estate in on the entire process to advise. It would help if that person had some experience in film and understood that its a lot more than just pointing out that "it did not happen that way in the books".

Right now the slate is clean and fresh and there is opportunity. Lets all hope that steps can be taken in the right direction.

Sadly, being an uber-fan does not guarantee that you are the best person to add to or remove from Tolkien's text and create something new. Efforts by members of the Tolkien Society in re-writing are sometimes proof of that ;)

I just hope for someone who understands narrative and plot.

I've noticed that threads on this forum tend to get off topic. The topic of this thread is to discuss Middle Earth stories that can potentially be told in the second, unnamed prequel film. I'll start off by recommending the tale of the Fall of Arnor at the hands of the Witch King. With Max Von Sydow as Malbeth the Seer and Liam Neeson as Arvedui.

I agree zxcvbn, however, I believe the second film will be PJ et al's Phantom Menence. He and his writers will be drawing on bits and pieces and won't have the strong Tolkien backbone to prop them up. So they will have to fill in a great deal of the plots, character developments ect. And their past track record i.e. before having Tolkiens backbone to prop him up, shows they can produce some really stinkers.

Is this an actual quote from Peter Jackson? He said this?

Yes.

...somehow, someway, I missed the source of that quote with your post.

Wow. . . if Jackson really said that, it just disgusts me. Until now, I had assumed that he actually had reasonable appreciation for the books he was trying to adapt to film. Such a statement indicates a deplorable ego and lack of intelligent perspective - without those "long and boring" books his films could not exist. What a crappy thing to say.

WCH, not that I doubt you, but I wish I could find more proof that Jackson made this statement. I haven't been able to find further reputable evidence for it using Google...

Galendor .... its no wonder you cannot find that quote. I cannot locate the Fountain of Youth either.

Yahoo will bring up a few references to the comment.