Subject for the Second film?

[davem]

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.

[Folwren]

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.

[Sauron the White]

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?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

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

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?

[Sauron the White]

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.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

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.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

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.

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

[davem]

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

Alejandro Serrano: They say many things about a film (or two) based on The Hobbit. ¿this things are good for the books (many people could read them for the first time if they do a film, as happened with The Lord of the Rings) or they are damaging them?


Adam Tolkien: I would have to say that it will depend on the film! http://www.fantasymundo.com/articulo.php?articulo=439

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

(It [CoH]might be compared to a sort of literary Director's Cut, the long version of the story assembled from all the best footage available, though my father probably wouldn't welcome the filmmaking comparison!) http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/?docId=1000074611

And the publisher hasn't ruled out the possibility of selling the CoH rights.

"We all want this first and foremost to enjoy life as a book," said Brawn. "No one's saying never to a film (but) the film rights are reserved by the estate. We want to see what reaction it gets and then let it run its course." David Brawn, Director at Harper Collins

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.

[Galendor]

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.

[Sauron the White]

from Galendor

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.

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?