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.

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?

Not unless the prospect actually materializes.

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!

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?

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...

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?

"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."

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?

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.

Both are good questions, I think.

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.

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.

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.

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

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/9c9ec5fc...dmbpo1_500.gif