Best Lotr/hobbit movies

[Greybeard]

What do you reckon to this list? They got the order right?

http://whatculture.com/film/lord-rings-hobbit-ranked-worst-best

[Zigûr]

I've never seen the Bakshi film, but of the Peter Jackson ones, I've had a think, and I would probably order them something like this, from worst to best: [EDIT: I mean "from best to worst", don't I?]

1. The Fellowship of the Ring (closest to the books, decent atmosphere)
2/3. The Two Towers/The Return of the King (not sure which is worse; they're both bad)
4. The Battle of (the) Five Armies (I actually thought the first half was okay, the second half is dire)
5. An Unexpected Journey (could have been good if they'd bothered to, you know, make it good, but they didn't, so it's a huge disappointment)
6. The Desolation of Smaug (complete nonsense from start to finish)

[Nerwen]

I think you mean "from best to worst", don't you?

[Zigûr]

I think you mean "from best to worst", don't you?
I do indeed.

[Kuruharan]

The Fellowship of the Ring - Peter Jackson - the only decent one

The Return of the King - Peter Jackson

The Lord of the Rings - Ralph Bakshi (which should just show how much I hate the rest of the list given how high this one is...)

An Unexpected Journey - Peter Jackson

The Two Towers - Peter Jackson

The Hobbit - Rankin/Bass

The Return of the King - Rankin/Bass

The Desolation of Smaug/The Battle of Five Armies - Peter Jackson - They were both so horrible that one can't really be ranked over the other.

This list is one of the most convincing arguments I've seen that Tolkien's work is not fit for the big screen.

However, Fellowship was good, so there is hope that it can be done right if the ego of the director and producers can somehow be kept in check...

EDIT: And I take back the subject line...it isn't kind of sad, it is REALLY sad.

[Inziladun]

Nice to see the Rankin/Bass entries, Kuru.

I haven't seen the live action Hobbit films, but I'd put the R/B ROTK over Jackson's epics in terms of my enjoyment.
It has a childlike charm, free of pretension or calculated earnings potential that I found sorely lacking in PJ's movies, despite (or actually because of, more likely) their gargantuan budgets.

[Kuruharan]

I haven't seen the live action Hobbit films, but I'd put the R/B ROTK over Jackson's epics in terms of my enjoyment.
It has a childlike charm, free of pretension or calculated earnings potential that I found sorely lacking in PJ's movies, despite (or actually because of, more likely) their gargantuan budgets.

Looking back, I regret implying that I "hate" the Rankin/Bass cartoons as much as the rubbish offerings of Jackson in the lower portion of my list.

I do not hate the Rankin/Bass cartoons, I rather enjoy them, but I hold them to a different standard. They are more lighthearted fare, not intended to be taken so seriously. And you have no soul if you hate Where there's a whip, there's a way.

In fact, I probably enjoy the Rankin/Bass cartoons more than Bakshi's version but I think (I almost can't bring myself to say this) that Bakshi's version has more artistic merit than the cartoons.

That sentence right there is a scathing critique of the state of Tolkien filmdom.

EDIT: I'm seriously tempted to amend my list to move The Two Towers below the Rankin/Bass Hobbit...

[Boromir88]

It's been a long time since I've seen either the R/B or Bakshi versions, so it wouldn't be fair to judge them without so good or fresh of a memory. I completely agree with Kuru about Where there's a whip, there's a way though. :D Also, I just don't think it's fair to compare them to PJ's films simply because of the vast differences in time and money invested. Here's a general outline of Best to worst, for all of PJs films...

I think they basically just kept getting worse and worse after the Fellowship. The drop off from the 3 LOTR films isn't as severe as with The Hobbit films, which completely tanked and went into the trash, after a relatively decent first film.

Fellowship of the Ring - 8.5/10
The Two Towers - 7/10
Return of the King - 7/10 - a lot of this is based on having a conclusion to the story, and I still remember when first seeing it having an emotional realization the journey was over. There's more trash I don't care for in ROTK than the other two, but this film also contains some of the most powerful moments. The arrival of the Rohirrim to the battle, Aragorn's speech at the Black Gate, and his "My friends, you bow to no one," are more impactful moments for me than really anything in the other two (besides Boromir's last stand). But there's also more garbage...Legolas/Gimli's friendship being thrown to the gutters of comic relief, senseless "Arwen is dying" stuff, the incompetence of Gondor's pride and courage, Frodo sending Sam home.

An Unexpected Journey - 5.5/10 - , A guilty pleasure romp into a fantasy flick, but no depth and this time around the set design and music, which were excellent strengths to the LOTR films were major disappointments. Too much recycled music and too much green screen.
Desolation of Smaug - 2.5/10
Battle of Five Armies - 2/10

I have absolutely nothing positive to say about the last 2 hobbit films. I'd rather watch Hercules in New York with Formendacil and see Arnold Schwartzeneggar beat up a bear...or well obviously an actor in a bear costume:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoNVy759F0U

[Aaron]

In regards to choosing the worst, it's a tie up between the Bakshi film and Battle of the Five Armies.
For whilst the Bakshi version attempted to be faithful to the book, it is utterly ruined by a shoddy animation style, stilted voice acting which substitutes the dignity of the characters for cheap melodrama, and genuinely embarrassing scenes using interpretive dancers. To have such vivid imaginings of, for example, Gandalf discovering Saruman's treachery, and then to see said Saruman rendered as an evil Father Christmas who shrieks his lines is very disheartening.
But, as I say, their hearts were in the right place. They did the best they could, with the resources they had.

The same cannot be said for the ethos behind Battle of the Five Armies which stands as nothing more than a bauble, a shiny distraction used to eek out another payday. At first, the performances, the score and production values allowed me to overlook the true awfulness of it, but it has since slowly dawned on me how truly terrible and opportunistic the movie was.
Like a mindless hack and slash video game, large parts involve the characters stumbling moronically from one action set-piece to another. The descent of Thorin is not rendered as the result of his personality flaws and the desire for material wealth instead of honour - instead, the Dragon did it.
All the ambiguity and hidden complexity of the book has been thrown out. But hey, we get Billy Connolly gurning for the camera, so that's something, right?

In regards to what the best movie is. In truth, it's hard to pick between the Jackson trilogy. Because whilst there are many quibbles to be had with the story, with inclusions and exclusions, what I cannot deny is that the casting is magnificent. The set design is outstanding, and the score remains as hauntingly beautiful as when I first heard it. It is an incredible project which succeeds in spite of so much forced sappiness and character mishandling.
Take Shelob's Lair as a prime example of this. The stringy, slowly rising music. The grotesque trophies the spider keeps webbed up like carcasses in a butcher shop. The disgusting squelch as Shelob forces her bloated form through every hidden crevice. It's a masterpiece of design and music.
And the series is full of such examples.
So whilst not a patch on the books, I will say that the original trilogy is admirable in many respects.

[Kuruharan]

I realize there is no arguing taste...but here goes anyway. :D

I'm surprised to see Two Towers appearing so high on other people's lists.

I had a distinctly visceral and hateful reaction to the film when I first saw it in the theaters (oh so many years ago...)

In some respects, my reaction to that film was emotionally stronger than my reaction to the Hobbit trilogy. I think because this was my first exposure to just how out of control Jackson could get and how stupid he could be. By the time Unexpected Journey came around I expected it.

[Galadriel55]

I suppose it's the same reason, but different outcome in both cases. I guess TTT just looks tame compared with the new films.

[Boromir88]

I realize there is no arguing taste...but here goes anyway. :D

I'm surprised to see Two Towers appearing so high on other people's lists.

I had a distinctly visceral and hateful reaction to the film when I first saw it in the theaters (oh so many years ago...)

In some respects, my reaction to that film was emotionally stronger than my reaction to the Hobbit trilogy. I think because this was my first exposure to just how out of control Jackson could get and how stupid he could be. By the time Unexpected Journey came around I expected it.

For myself, part of it might be influenced that I did a full on Hobbit followed by LOTR marathon, and so I ended seeing the LOTR movies in a lot better light last time around.

I ended up enjoying TTT up through the King of the Golden Hall scene. The Frodo's flashback dream to Gandalf's fall in Moria, the taming of Sméagol and being led through the Dead Marshes, the Three Hunters chase of the Uruks and unexpectedly meeting Gandalf in Fangorn. And even though they portrayed Gandalf-Théoden-Saruman as an exorcism, that worked out better on screen, imo. Movie goes downs hill with the warg attack and Aragorn's "tumble off the cliff" *gasp*...but I came away enjoying the first half the movie.

[Kuruharan]

For myself, part of it might be influenced that I did a full on Hobbit followed by LOTR marathon, and so I ended seeing the LOTR movies in a lot better light last time around.

I ended up enjoying TTT up through the King of the Golden Hall scene. The Frodo's flashback dream to Gandalf's fall in Moria, the taming of Sméagol and being led through the Dead Marshes, the Three Hunters chase of the Uruks and unexpectedly meeting Gandalf in Fangorn. And even though they portrayed Gandalf-Théoden-Saruman as an exorcism, that worked out better on screen, imo. Movie goes downs hill with the warg attack and Aragorn's "tumble off the cliff" *gasp*...but I came away enjoying the first half the movie.

That is a good point, the first part of TTT was not as bad as the rest of it.

More than Aragorn's horse went tumbling off the cliff in that scene.

[IxnaY AintsaY]

Out of the ones I've seen, from one to eight, from best to worst for me:

The first two are the only ones I get a hankering to re-watch from time to time.

1. PJ Return of the King - The only visual adaptation I really like, warts and all.
2. PJ Fellowship of the Ring - Middling good.


The next three still show evidence of some love in their making, though they're all deeply flawed.

3. PJ Two Towers
4. Rankin-Bass Return of the King - It's possible I'd flip this and Bakshi. It's been a long time since I've watched the whole thing.
5. Bakshi Lord of the Rings - See above. Interesting visually, and a few things--like its vision of orcs--have stuck with me for decades.

After that, things get ugly fast, shattering my numerical scale...

8. An Unexpected Journey - Very bad, but a few good moments.
13. Battle of Five Armies - Worse, and fewer.
22. Desolation of Smaug - Just horrendous. And painful. And yet dull!

[Morthoron]

Prioritizing Jackson's Middle-earth films is rather like listing in order of preference Dante's Seven Circles of Hell. They are all bad in their own special way, but they do get worse the further one descends.

[Nerwen]

Prioritizing Jackson's Middle-earth films is rather like listing in order of preference Dante's Seven Circles of Hell. They are all bad in their own special way, but they do get worse the further one descends.
*cough* Nine, not seven.

Hmmmn... I remember you used to be reasonably positive towards the original trilogy. What changed?

[Morthoron]

*cough* Nine, not seven.

Hmmmn... I remember you used to be reasonably positive towards the original trilogy. What changed?

I don't know why I typed seven. I guess that puts me in the Malebolge, which I skipped. But in retrospect, Jackson would have edited out the last two circles and added in a 10th of his own making and as an appendix grafted on pieces of the Purgatorio. ;)

Also in retrospect, I have come to the conclusion that the only good thing about the films was the original story. Jackson was handed perhaps the greatest fantasy novel (novels if one includes The Hobbit) to work from. He had what amounted to a budget the size of the GDP of any number of small countries, the cinematic backdrop of New Zealand and some of the finest actors available (Ian Holm, Ian Mckellen, Christopher Lee, Cate Blanchett - they could recite a phone book and I would listen). But what did we get?

Taking the six films in one package, we got unnecessary addenda that became more and more pronounced the further we went into the story, and by the last two films of The Hobbit, the original story was actually no longer reminiscent of the book it was purportedly based on. By then the original story was merely a prop - an occasional marker on a strange road to remind us where we were going.

But the descent didn't just occur halfway through AUJ and spiral out of control from there. It just became so apparent that it became unwatchable at that juncture. We got superfluity and nonsense that oftentimes took the place of actual story plot that was inexplicably left out, we got characters that were out of character, - and I'm referring to LotR and not just The Hobbit.

Jackson's penchant for meddling and devising his own plot-points basically destroyed The Two Towers for me, and many of the changes in RotK were only redeemed by the fact that Jackson could not ultimately change the fundamental structure of the story in a way so as to wreck what Tolkien wrote, because the original lines and plot were that good. To paraphrase Rossini in regards to Wagner: Jackson had brilliant moments but awful quarter hours. When he adhered to the original story, the scenes were brilliant and the dialogue left one teary-eyed (even when a different character mouthed the line).

But in those quarter hours, we had to balance between heart-wrenching heroism (Eowyn defeating the WitchKing and saying goodbye to Theoden) to banal absurdity (Legolas Heffalump surfing and Scrubbing Bubbles cleansing Minas Tirith). If you really study the films, this type of balancing act between original beauty and improvised banality occurs so often that I can no longer justify watching them. And there is no nuance or subtlety in the way Jackson shat out unjustifiable plotlines in every quarter hour sequence (and I won't belabor the readers to point them out again).

By the time The Hobbit was released Jackson, with his bushel of Oscars (but no creditable films since LotR, not surprisingly), no longer had the restraints that made LotR palatable at most, brilliant in spots, but head-scratching overall. There was no one left to tell Jackson, "Hey, you know making Arwen a warrior-princess and having her fight alongside Aragorn at Helm's Deep is asinine."

No, this lack of restraint is evident in that he literally rewrote The Hobbit in his own image and likeness: juvenile jokes, bad dialogue, explodey things, wacky chase scenes, endless CGI fight sequences and grotesque monsters from his days making cheap horror films (even importing sand worms from Arrakis). Tauriel became the Arwen he wasn't allowed to have in Lord of the Rings. Bilbo's central role is minimized so that GQ handsome dwarves with perfect hair can make sexual jokes with Elves. A bow isn't good enough for Bard (the...ummm...bowman), he needs a giant arbalest and an arrow the size of a cruise ship anchor.

The movies appear on cable regularly, but I can't watch them, not even for a minute.

[Kuruharan]

At least the notion that The Hobbit trilogy is awful has percolated out a bit into the larger culture.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

They were showing The Two Towers on telly today, and I made a somewhat feeble attempt at watching it.

I used to think that the movies were good entertainment, and a nice homage to the books... and that would be it. As an adaptation, I have always found them infuriating and weird.

What struck me today, is that these movies haven't aged as well as I would have thought. A great deal of their appeal back then, was the amount of attention that had gone into detail and the breath taking landscapes... yet this time around it did not seem overly impressive.

I guess I have just grown accustomed to picturesque cinematic experiences.

[Nerwen]

Also in retrospect, I have come to the conclusion that the only good thing about the films was the original story. Jackson was handed perhaps the greatest fantasy novel (novels if one includes The Hobbit) to work from. He had what amounted to a budget the size of the GDP of any number of small countries, the cinematic backdrop of New Zealand and some of the finest actors available (Ian Holm, Ian Mckellen, Christopher Lee, Cate Blanchett - they could recite a phone book and I would listen). But what did we get?

Taking the six films in one package, we got unnecessary addenda that became more and more pronounced the further we went into the story, and by the last two films of The Hobbit, the original story was actually no longer reminiscent of the book it was purportedly based on. By then the original story was merely a prop - an occasional marker on a strange road to remind us where we were going.

But the descent didn't just occur halfway through AUJ and spiral out of control from there. It just became so apparent that it became unwatchable at that juncture. We got superfluity and nonsense that oftentimes took the place of actual story plot that was inexplicably left out, we got characters that were out of character, - and I'm referring to LotR and not just The Hobbit.

I think you're really overstating it to say the original story is the *only* good thing about the LotR films- there's some pretty good filmmaking in there. Though certainly the invented plotlines are mostly pointless clutter, especially in TTT.

As for "The Hobbit".... no, I'd say it's reminiscent of the book.;)

No, this lack of restraint is evident in that he literally rewrote The Hobbit in his own image and likeness: juvenile jokes, bad dialogue, explodey things, wacky chase scenes, endless CGI fight sequences and grotesque monsters from his days making cheap horror films (even importing sand worms from Arrakis). Tauriel became the Arwen he wasn't allowed to have in Lord of the Rings. Bilbo's central role is minimized so that GQ handsome dwarves with perfect hair can make sexual jokes with Elves. A bow isn't good enough for Bard (the...ummm...bowman), he needs a giant arbalest and an arrow the size of a cruise ship anchor.
Ah, but wouldn't you have liked to be a fly on the wall during their brainstorming sessions?:smokin:

Also Tauriel is certainly in the spirit of Tolkien fandom. :Merisu:

[Nerwen]

At least the notion that The Hobbit trilogy is awful has percolated out a bit into the larger culture.
If you mean "larger nerd culture", I fear this is merely the snowballing effect of something coming to be seen as "cool thing to bash". I mean, rather than it being the case of each and every nerd independently casting a thoughtful, critical eye over the movies and finding them appreciably lacking in crucial cinematic and narrative qualities.

Could be that the behaviour of some of the fanboys early on didn't help, either.

[Kuruharan]

Ah, but wouldn't you have liked to be a fly on the wall during their brainstorming sessions?:smokin:

No. I'm surrounded by rampant idiocy and egomania on a daily basis. I don't need exposure to more.

If you mean "larger nerd culture", I fear this is merely the snowballing effect of something coming to be seen as "cool thing to bash". I mean, rather than it being the case of each and every nerd independently casting a thoughtful, critical eye over the movies and finding them appreciably lacking in crucial cinematic and narrative qualities.

There might be something to that. However, the nerds had the opportunity to see the films for themselves and I've never known nerds to be shy with their opinions on whatever topic. I think there is just a hostile consensus against the films.

[Morthoron]

I think you're really overstating it to say the original story is the *only* good thing about the LotR films- there's some pretty good filmmaking in there. Though certainly the invented plotlines are mostly pointless clutter, especially in TTT.

In the context of not wanting to watch them ever again, I wouldn't necessarily call it an overstatement. There's any number of great films I'll watch yearly - I cringe even when I am randomly clicking by a LotR film with my TV remote. :)

As for "The Hobbit".... no, I'd say it's reminiscent of the book.;)

However vaguely, yes.

Also Tauriel is certainly in the spirit of Tolkien fandom. :Merisu:

Okay, you got me there. Elfess.

[Nerwen]

No. I'm surrounded by rampant idiocy and egomania on a daily basis. I don't need exposure to more.
But the gold dwarf statue/dragon trap! Surely you'd have liked to witness the creative ferment that led to that glorious invention? No? :Merisu:

There might be something to that. However, the nerds had the opportunity to see the films for themselves and I've never known nerds to be shy with their opinions on whatever topic. I think there is just a hostile consensus against the films.
Indeed, but how many of these people were yelling "BOX OFFICE! BOX OFFICE! HEART AND SOUL!!! APPENDICES!!!!" back in the day? Quite a few, I'd bet. Saving our august presences, a lot of nerds are really rather dumb, you know. I mean I don't think they tend to be all that good at forming their own opinions in the first place.

[Kuruharan]

But the gold dwarf statue/dragon trap! Surely you'd have liked to witness the creative ferment that led to that glorious invention? No? :Merisu:


Decency prohibits me to name that particular kind of ferment that I think that process could be best likened to.

a lot of nerds are really rather dumb, you know. I mean I don't think they tend to be all that good at forming their own opinions in the first place.

But that holds true for every topic across human history.

[Nerwen]

Decency prohibits me to name that particular kind of ferment that I think that process could be best likened to.



But that holds true for every topic across human history.
In a way... but you must know the particular nerd-fanboy mentality I'm talking about. We're not talking about some genuinely complex issue that most people couldn't be expected to really understand, after all- it's just whether or not they liked a given movie. What I'm saying is, I don't really feel like patting myself on the back just because nerd consensus happens to have swung my way for the moment, since I just don't think it means much.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Best movies?

1) FR
2 (tie) TT, RK

That's the end of the list; since "best" is the superlative of "good", one can't include movies about which there is nothing good. Perhaps if the variable term were "least abysmal....." or "descending order of suckitude".......

[Nerwen]

Best movies?

1) FR
2 (tie) TT, RK

That's the end of the list; since "best" is the superlative of "good", one can't include movies about which there is nothing good. Perhaps if the variable term were "least abysmal....." or "descending order of suckitude".......
Okay- what's your descending order of suckitude, then?;)

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Okay- what's your descending order of suckitude, then?;)


∞) AUJ
∞+1 (tie) DOS, BOFA

[Morthoron]

∞) AUJ
∞+1 (tie) DOS, BOFA
The suckitude is strong with those, my young Padawan.

I would say...

1) FotR
2) RotK



3) TTT



...And then the rest fall into the Bromidic Abyss of Banal Prequelity.

[Kuruharan]

So following in the footsteps of the Star Wars franchise, what are the odds that Jackson will come back again with some..."midquels" to milk out some more money?

(Is there an accepted neologism for "new movies between the original and the prequels or sequels" yet?)

[Formendacil]

So following in the footsteps of the Star Wars franchise, what are the odds that Jackson will come back again with some..."midquels" to milk out some more money?

(Is there an accepted neologism for "new movies between the original and the prequels or sequels" yet?)

I have heard the usage "interquel" before--at least for "during an installation of a series." It would seem to apply here.

[Kuruharan]

I have heard the usage "interquel" before--at least for "during an installation of a series." It would seem to apply here.

Thank you, sir.

That does have a nicer ring to it...at least as nice as something like this can have.

[Galadriel55]

So following in the footsteps of the Star Wars franchise, what are the odds that Jackson will come back again with some..."midquels" to milk out some more money?

(Is there an accepted neologism for "new movies between the original and the prequels or sequels" yet?)

Well, there is the one about Gandalf and Aragorn hunting Gollum, forget what it's called. I can totally see some more spin offs happening.

[Inziladun]

Well, there is the one about Gandalf and Aragorn hunting Gollum, forget what it's called. I can totally see some more spin offs happening.

If there's money to be had, and legal issues are surmountable, I have no doubt anything to which the name Tolkien can be attached will be released on the world.

[Kuruharan]

Well, there is the one about Gandalf and Aragorn hunting Gollum, forget what it's called. I can totally see some more spin offs happening.

That was fan made, and not too bad.

Can't remember the name of it... :o

[Nerwen]

Well, there is the one about Gandalf and Aragorn hunting Gollum, forget what it's called. I can totally see some more spin offs happening.
Ah, yes, the one in which Gandalf and Aragorn hunt for Gollum. It is certainly very, very hard to imagine what title such a film might have. (http://huntforgollumfilm.github.io/website/) Quite a puzzle, indeed!:p

[Galadriel55]

Ah, yes, the one in which Gandalf and Aragorn hunt for Gollum. It is certainly very, very hard to imagine what title such a film might have. (http://huntforgollumfilm.github.io/website/) Quite a puzzle, indeed!:p

*laughing* :D

[Aiwendil]

1. The Fellowship of the Ring (Jackson)
2. The Lord of the Rings (Bakshi)
3. The Return of the King (Jackson)
4. The Two Towers (Jackson)
5. The Hobbit (Rankin-Bass)
6. An Unexpected Journey (Jackson)
7. The Return of the King (Rankin-Bass)
8. The Desolation of Smaug (Jackson)
9. The Battle of Five Armies (Jackson)

[Nerwen]

So following in the footsteps of the Star Wars franchise, what are the odds that Jackson will come back again with some..."midquels" to milk out some more money?
Refresh my memory- wasn't that basically the original plan? Before it was realised that the sheer epic vastness, or vast epicness, that is "The Hobbit" could not possibly be contained in anything less than a trilogy, wasn't it going to be one "Hobbit" film + an unspecified "bridging" movie?

[Zigûr]

That's what I recall as well: one "Hobbit" and one sort of "in between" film that would surely have been horrible fan fiction (moreso than "The Hobbit" ended up being, I mean).

Aren't the current legalities quite restrictive? To the best of my knowledge, based on what people have said here, the film rights holders are not allowed to adapt even things in the Appendices which are not also mentioned in the main body of The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings in some fashion.

I feel that leaves them with two choices:
1. Make the films again (unlikely for the time being)
2. Make stuff up (more likely)

That being said, I think the faceless grey-suited men at Warner Bros. would also have to decide a few other things, like whether Peter Jackson's name would bring in more net profit than hiring someone new who would be cheaper. I sometimes feel that there's an assumption that more Warner Bros./New Line/Zaentz/whatever "Middle-earth" films would involve Jackson as director, but I don't think that's necessarily the case.

[Kuruharan]

Refresh my memory- wasn't that basically the original plan? Before it was realised that the sheer epic vastness, or vast epicness, that is "The Hobbit" could not possibly be contained in anything less than a trilogy, wasn't it going to be one "Hobbit" film + an unspecified "bridging" movie?

Now that you mention it, yes it was.

Hmm...I made that comment as a little bit of a joke, however, if Jackson runs out of money there may yet be more films in the franchise.

[Nerwen]

Now that you mention it, yes it was.

Hmm...I made that comment as a little bit of a joke, however, if Jackson runs out of money there may yet be more films in the franchise.
Hmmn... do you think this subject should have its own thread?

[Kuruharan]

Hmmn... do you think this subject should have its own thread?

Not unless the prospect actually materializes.

[PrinceOfTheHalflings]

That's what I recall as well: one "Hobbit" and one sort of "in between" film that would surely have been horrible fan fiction (moreso than "The Hobbit" ended up being, I mean).

Aren't the current legalities quite restrictive? To the best of my knowledge, based on what people have said here, the film rights holders are not allowed to adapt even things in the Appendices which are not also mentioned in the main body of The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings in some fashion.

I feel that leaves them with two choices:
1. Make the films again (unlikely for the time being)
2. Make stuff up (more likely)

That being said, I think the faceless grey-suited men at Warner Bros. would also have to decide a few other things, like whether Peter Jackson's name would bring in more net profit than hiring someone new who would be cheaper. I sometimes feel that there's an assumption that more Warner Bros./New Line/Zaentz/whatever "Middle-earth" films would involve Jackson as director, but I don't think that's necessarily the case.

I would have thought that the Appendices were fair game, since they ARE part of "The Lord Of The Rings". I am unaware of any copyright law that says that only certain parts of a book are adaptable. However, we don't want to give Peter Jackson any more encouragement. What is certainly off-limits is the other works, like The Silmarillion, HoME etc.

I like to think that a TV adaptation of "The Lord Of The Rings" would be a possibility in the future. Three 10 episode seasons - at approximately one hour per episode - that would mean 30 hours. That should give enough to cover the story, as written by Tolkien, and include all the elements in the books. Including Mr Bombadil!

[Zigûr]

I would have thought that the Appendices were fair game, since they ARE part of "The Lord Of The Rings". I am unaware of any copyright law that says that only certain parts of a book are adaptable.
It's just what I've heard - that they can't adapt things from the Appendices that aren't referenced in the main body of the text. Someone here said that, although I can't remember who.

[Nerwen]

It's just what I've heard - that they can't adapt things from the Appendices that aren't referenced in the main body of the text. Someone here said that, although I can't remember who.
This is news to me. Was it something that came up recently?

[Zigûr]

This is news to me. Was it something that came up recently?
No, it would have been a few years ago now, when the Hobbit films were coming out.

Now I feel like I'm going crazy :confused:

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I think it was more something like this:
If something is:
1. Mentioned in The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, The History of Middle-earth etc., AND
2. Mentioned in the Appendices to The Lord of the Rings, BUT
3. NOT Mentioned in the main body of the text of The Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit,
they can't use it.

I was oversimplifying before.
So this would mean, for instance, they couldn't make a film about Morgoth stealing the jewels and hiding them in Angband, with Fëanor waging a war to reclaim them, because while this is mentioned in the Appendices, it's not in the main body of the text and is primarily in The Silmarillion, if that makes sense.

On the other hand I could be completely wrong and these stipulations might not exist at all.

[Nerwen]

No, it would have been a few years ago now, when the Hobbit films were coming out.

Now I feel like I'm going crazy :confused:

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I think it was more something like this:
If something is:
1. Mentioned in The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, The History of Middle-earth etc., AND
2. Mentioned in the Appendices to The Lord of the Rings, BUT
3. NOT Mentioned in the main body of the text of The Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit,
they can't use it.

I was oversimplifying before.
So this would mean, for instance, they couldn't make a film about Morgoth stealing the jewels and hiding them in Angband, with Fëanor waging a war to reclaim them, because while this is mentioned in the Appendices, it's not in the main body of the text and is primarily in The Silmarillion, if that makes sense.

On the other hand I could be completely wrong and these stipulations might not exist at all.
Well, there were those who argued that the mention of First and Second Age events in the Appendices somehow meant that the "Lord of the Rings" film rights extended to *all* related material, even if unpublished at the time. (One poster, in fact, was very insistant that Christopher Tolkien had morally and legally wronged Zaentz by publishing "The Silmarillion", and was anticipating a court case!)

What I can't recall is anyone proving the rights didn't even include the stuff in "The Appendices" in the first place. I'd love to be wrong, though...

[Kuruharan]

Here's a question: after the tepidly received Hobbit trilogy, would a Jackson made Appendices based movie even be at all successful?

[Nerwen]

Here's a question: after the tepidly received Hobbit trilogy, would a Jackson made Appendices based movie even be at all successful?
You mean this time people might check that everything claimed to be "in the Appendices" is actually there?

[Zigûr]

You mean this time people might check that everything claimed to be "in the Appendices" is actually there?
"When did Tolkien say that Radagast rode a rabbit sled?"
"...um, I think it was somewhere near the back..."

I think I saw something recently in which someone else had arrived at the same idea as me that the Kin-Strife was something "in the Appendices" that was ripe for adaptation.

I think if it was done in the manner of the "Hobbit" films, though, it would probably turn out that Castamir was secretly working directly for Sauron himself (perhaps meeting him in an audience chamber the way Darth Vader talks to the Emperor in The Empire Strikes Back) and Orcs would be sent to "reinforce" the Gondor usurpation armies.

Legolas would, of course, assist the Northmen. In the Battle of the Crossings of Erui (the title of the fifth film would be "The Battle of the Crossings of the Erui"), Legolas would kill Castamir on top of a collapsing tower, while Eldacar, who hasn't had a line since the third film, is forced to fight the evil, resurrected zombie version of his son Ornendil, who has been brought back through "certain necromantic magicks".

At the very end Thranduil (who is also there, mostly to second-guess Eldacar's decisions) would tell Legolas to "Seek out a young wizard I know."

[Kuruharan]

You mean this time people might check that everything claimed to be "in the Appendices" is actually there?

No, I mean would people turn up at the theater and plunk down money for another Jackson Middle-earth flick?

[Nerwen]

No, I mean would people turn up at the theater and plunk down money for another Jackson Middle-earth flick?
Is the emphasis there on Jackson? That is, you think you think they'd accept "Aragorn and Legolas: the Early Years" or whatever from another director? Or just that audiences are tired of Middle-earth now generally?

[Nerwen]

"When did Tolkien say that Radagast rode a rabbit sled?"
"...um, I think it was somewhere near the back..."

I think I saw something recently in which someone else had arrived at the same idea as me that the Kin-Strife was something "in the Appendices" that was ripe for adaptation.

I think if it was done in the manner of the "Hobbit" films, though, it would probably turn out that Castamir was secretly working directly for Sauron himself (perhaps meeting him in an audience chamber the way Darth Vader talks to the Emperor in The Empire Strikes Back) and Orcs would be sent to "reinforce" the Gondor usurpation armies.

Legolas would, of course, assist the Northmen. In the Battle of the Crossings of Erui (the title of the fifth film would be "The Battle of the Crossings of the Erui"), Legolas would kill Castamir on top of a collapsing tower, while Eldacar, who hasn't had a line since the third film, is forced to fight the evil, resurrected zombie version of his son Ornendil, who has been brought back through "certain necromantic magicks".

At the very end Thranduil (who is also there, mostly to second-guess Eldacar's decisions) would tell Legolas to "Seek out a young wizard I know."
Sounds about right.:rolleyes:

Ah, this is taking me back to all the speculation years ago about the bridging film that never was. By the way, I misspoke by saying that was the original plan. The original original plan was to make one movie. Then it was two... then three. We were gradually acclimatised, you might say.

[Kuruharan]

Is the emphasis there on Jackson? That is, you think you think they'd accept "Aragorn and Legolas: the Early Years" or whatever from another director? Or just that audiences are tired of Middle-earth now generally?

Both are good questions, I think.

[Zigûr]

I think if they made another film and Jackson wasn't directing they'd have a more difficult marketing challenge ahead of themselves.

I think a film that didn't feature the brand recognition of Jackson's name or the brand recognition of the titles of The Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit (which were still somewhat famous in their own right) would face much more of a struggle.

[Snowdog]

Hmm.... ratings from me:


1. Born Of Hope (Kate Maddison)
2. The Fellowship of the Ring (Jackson)
3. The Lord of the Rings (Bakshi)
4. The Two Towers (Jackson)
5. Hunt For Gollum (Chris Bouchard)
6. The Return of the King (Jackson)
7. An Unexpected Journey (Jackson)
8. The Hobbit (Rankin-Bass)
9. The Return of the King (Rankin-Bass)
10. The Desolation of Smaug (Jackson)
11. The Battle of Five Armies (Jackson)

I ordered them by my preference of viewing. I added the fan films because they have some heart behind them if not the budget, and are a preferrable watch to me despite some shortcomings in them. Of the forst three LotR P.J. Boyens & Co movies, they have to be the EE, and even then, I can usually only stomach Fellowship, with a fast forward through the Arwen part. I admire the Bakshi attempt, and love the orcs in it. The faux-Viking Boromir and the Robin Hood Strider was a bit much. but I could accept the Disney Princess Galadriel. And at least it had Glorfindel in it. That said, except for the 1st one on occasion, I don't usually go out of my way to watch any of them.

In the context of not wanting to watch them ever again, I wouldn't necessarily call it an overstatement. There's any number of great films I'll watch yearly - I cringe even when I am randomly clicking by a LotR film with my TV remote. :)

I agree. I will give one of the Jackson movies until the first commercial break should I find it on free-to-air TV, if only to remind myself how crap the screenplays are.

[Inziladun]

I admire the Bakshi attempt, and love the orcs in it. The faux-Viking Boromir and the Robin Hood Strider was a bit much. but I could accept the Disney Princess Galadriel. And at least it had Glorfindel in it.

And Arwen does not speak! If only Liv Tyler.... ;)

[Pervinca Took]

It *sort* of had Glorfindel in it. But Aragorn insisted on calling him Legolas, and *he* insisted on going on the Quest with them!

;)

[Inziladun]

It *sort* of had Glorfindel in it. But Aragorn insisted on calling him Legolas, and *he* insisted on going on the Quest with them!

Doe-eyed though his animated self was, he had nothing on this.

https://68.media.tumblr.com/9c9ec5fcd29aa5283239c5340efad73c/tumblr_mroxbslZaQ1scdmbpo1_500.gif