Potential Middle Earth movies in the future?

[Andsigil]

David Lynch did "Dune" back in 1984. It's taken 33 years for another shot at it in cinema, this time with Denis Villeneuve ("Sicario", "Blade Runner 2049", "The Arrival") as the director, and it's going to be a trilogy.

Kuruharan was right when he said it will take a generation before we see more Tolkien films.

[Zigûr]

I think this is likely as well. The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings were already famous texts before the films. Putting aside the fact that they would have to almost completely invent the plot from whole cloth (and the Dol Guldur material in the most recent films shows how that can go) I can't imagine how they would market a spinoff.

[Rhun charioteer]

Given that Hollywood currently has a paucity of ideas and the LOTR trilogy is looked upon very favorably(go to any YouTube comment section with LOTR clips) I suspect we might be seeing a new LOTR movie adaptation sooner than later.

Perhaps not until at least 20-25 years after Jackson's films were released(2020s-2030s) but I believe it will happen.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Oh, wunnerful. "Tolkien" movies comprising entirely third-rate fanfic.

Anyone who thinks Shadow of Mordor has any connection to Tolkien whatsoever beyond some nomenclature licensed from the Tower of Orzaentz should be legally barred from ever touching a Tolkien-oriented project.

Hollywood is entirely free to make all the crappy brain-dead sword 'n' sorcery flicks it likes without sullying the Professor's legacy, thank you very much.,

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Hollywood is entirely free to make all the crappy brain-dead sword 'n' sorcery flicks it likes without sullying the Professor's legacy, thank you very much.,

But Tolkien is where the money is! You can't very well expect to have a blockbuster Xena/Hercules/Dungeons and Dragons style flick with a screenplay written by Billy Joe Johnson from El Paso, TX.

[Zigûr]

If they were to make some kind of fan fiction spinoff, it'd have to be called The Lord of the Rings: <SUBTITLE> or similar; otherwise I suspect very few people would see it. The "brand recognition" would need to be manufactured.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Oh, wunnerful. "Tolkien" movies comprising entirely third-rate fanfic.

Anyone who thinks Shadow of Mordor has any connection to Tolkien whatsoever beyond some nomenclature licensed from the Tower of Orzaentz should be legally barred from ever touching a Tolkien-oriented project.

Hollywood is entirely free to make all the crappy brain-dead sword 'n' sorcery flicks it likes without sullying the Professor's legacy, thank you very much.,

Originally Posted by Zigûr

If they were to make some kind of fan fiction spinoff, it'd have to be called The Lord of the Rings: <SUBTITLE> or similar; otherwise I suspect very few people would see it. The "brand recognition" would need to be manufactured.

But is there any legal barrier to them doing exactly this?

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Anyone who thinks Shadow of Mordor has any connection to Tolkien whatsoever beyond some nomenclature licensed from the Tower of Orzaentz should be legally barred from ever touching a Tolkien-oriented project.

The thing about SoM is you play it, and you go 'yeah, I can see what they're trying for here, it's not where I'd take it but it's a reasonable guess at Orc society in Mordor'... and then you take on another main storyline mission and find out that (uh, spoilers I guess?) Gollum is Celebrimbor's biggest fan, or Talion the Half-Nazgul is super down with helping orcs for some reason, or Sauron's war-leaders all hide somewhere and never go near their troops unless someone kills their favourite pig or whatever.

And then you go 'wut'.

(Also it becomes increasingly clear that the developers think Eregion was in Mordor, which is all manner of messed up.)

Originally Posted by Zigûr

I wonder if they saved or lost money by splitting the project into three films when it was originally meant to be two.

You'd also need to wonder whether they made more money by adding the extra stuff. Ignore the extra tickets just from having three films - how many people did they draw in by having Cate Blanchett and Christopher Lee in there? They're both popular actors; I'm sure they sold a few seats. (And in contrast, I doubt very many people went 'well, I was all for it when it was two movies, but three? They're not getting my money!'. Maybe some, though.)

Also there's all the money they must have made from the theme park... what? Whaddaya mean there wasn't one? But... the barrel ride! The thing with the molten gold! DoS was blatantly an advert for their big rollercoasters!

hS

[Aaron]

You couldn't make a movie about it of course, but would anyone else like to see a short film based on The New Shadow? What Tolkien wrote was very dialogue heavy, but dripping in menace and unease, and I could see it working very well if someone were to try and put it to film.

[Eldy]

The New Shadow is intriguing as a fragment but I don't really want to see someone who is not Tolkien try to extend it; at least not as a licensed adaptation that a lot of people would interpret it as "official" in some way. But I don't think an adaptation that broke off at the same place as the text, before there's any payoff to any of the ideas that are introduced, would be very satisfying. I can see how others disagree, though.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Andsigil

David Lynch did "Dune" back in 1984. It's taken 33 years for another shot at it in cinema, this time with Denis Villeneuve ("Sicario", "Blade Runner 2049", "The Arrival") as the director, and it's going to be a trilogy.

Kuruharan was right when he said it will take a generation before we see more Tolkien films.

The difference is, the Lynch-DiLaurentis Dune was a commercial flop, indeed a box office disaster, whereas PJ's Rings flicks are some of the biggest moneymakers in history. That makes a big, big difference to the studio suits when evaluating a return to the well.

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

The difference is, the Lynch-DiLaurentis Dune was a commercial flop, indeed a box office disaster, whereas PJ's Rings flicks are some of the biggest moneymakers in history. That makes a big, big difference to the studio suits when evaluating a return to the well.

What was "The Hobbit"'s ROI?

[Zigûr]

Wikipedia claims that it made $2.93 billion on a $745 million budget (Wikipedia itself says a $623 million budget, but every source for that claim says $745 million).

That would suggest a profit of almost $2.2 billion, although one should deduct several hundred million more for marketing.

Nevertheless, it's a quantity which probably exceeds Smaug's wildest dreams of avarice. I wonder if they saved or lost money by splitting the project into three films when it was originally meant to be two.

Percentage-wise, however, it's far less than the return the Lord of the Rings trilogy made, which seems to have made almost ten times its cost (depending on marketing and other factors).