Ten, and twenty and thirty years on.....

[Neurion]

Do you suppose that another film of The Lord of the Rings will be made in the future, and if so, how do you think it would be changed? Would you like to see a remake, if well done?

(This is, of course, assuming I don't manage to finagle my way into helming such a project in the next couple of decades )

[Kath]

I'm not sure that I would like a remake, the films are like the books, a one time only thing. Any remakes would be continually compared to the originals and to my mind they wouldn't be any better because the reason the films were so fantastic was because they were the first real, good attempt at bringing Tolkien's creation to life.

Also if too many years go past then any new filmmakers will no longer have people like Alan Lee or John Howard to work with to keep their film close to the vision of Tolkien.

The only thing I can see someone doing is either doing a film exactly to the storyline of the books or doing something so completely different it's barely recognisable.

[the guy who be short]

Originally Posted by Kath

The only thing I can see someone doing is either doing a film exactly to the storyline of the books or doing something so completely different it's barely recognisable.

Lord of the Rings 3000! When the futuristic Orcings of Planet Mudda attack Earth under the orders of their foul leader, The Sour One, it is up to a young human, Fred Bags, to rescue humanity. Together with his faithful servant Sam Jam, he must take the Digital-Ring of Power to Planet Mudda itself, where it must be cast into the open core of the planet, thus destroying it and deprogramming all the Orcings spaceships...

Actually, that sounds quite interesting. No, I don't know where it came from either, but I'd like to see that version of it.

[narfforc]

The way the Tekromancers are advancing the next Lotr films will most probably be wholly CGI. They can already use famous actors who have shed the mortal coil, or are now too old, this may well be a chance to use Brigitte Bardot as Galadriel or Errol Flynn in green tights as Legolas (I jest). Think of the actors/actresses who could play the parts, choose, the world is your oyster.

[Neurion]

For myself, I'd like to see a trilogy more accurate to the books made. The problem with my own particular vision of the story though is that the PJ films come extremely close to my conception of what Middle-Earth should look like, and to re-use a great many of the design elements and even props from the PJ trilogy would no doubt spark off controversy, as well as accusations regarding imagination or lack of imitation

However, changing things like the time Aragorn's taking up Anduril occurs, inserting characters like Galdor, Imrahil, Elladan, Elrohir and Beregond, leaving out the superfluous bits like the drinking game, re-inserting the Scouring of the Shire and cutting back on the amount of screen-time Arwen gets, as well as making the Gondorian soldiers more realistically tough versus the orcs and giving Aragorn the war-crown helm of the King of Gondor rather than that little tiara, just to name ahandful of hundreds of possible examples, would, I think, differentiate a second trilogy enough from the currently existing one.

[Durelin]

In ten or twenty years I'm expecting a re-release with the films *digitally* (or something...maybe 'holographically'?) remastered.

And then we'll all go to conventions and talk about the good ol' days when they were first released and there was nothing like 'em out there.

[alatar]

Remembering that a time existed in which the box into which you are staring did not exist, I can only guess at what 20-30 years will bring.

Of course we will get the re-release of Peter Jackson's work. Not sure on what media it will be sold - will DVD media even exist then (except for in museums and garage sales... "Why look, honey, it's one of those DVD players I read about on that antiquing website. Let's buy it and place it on the mantel next to that iPod thing we bought last month.")?

Hopefully someone with a true love for the work (like one of you youngsters out there) will use the technology of the day to create something worthy...like an interactive 3D book where you can walk alongside the Fellowship, speak with them (their answers are compilations of thoughts expressed at the Downs along with the original work), and get a real feel for Middle Earth, kind of like what PJ did via his 2D film (sans his departures from the story, of course).

"The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades"

[Tigerlily Gamgee]

I think that remaking LOTR would be like remaking Star Wars, and I hope that neither is ever done. Then again, who would've thought they'd remake Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? Usually, when a movie is as popular as that you wouldn't think it would be remade... but who knows... who knows.
I think it's more likely for a movie remake to be done if it starts out as an original screenplay and not a book... or, if the director is just positive that his new version will surpass the old one. But, I don't think anyone would tackle remaking a trilogy. A single film remake is not as much of a risk for a studio to take.

[narfforc]

Alatar has got my mind racing on this one. I remember in the original Star Trek everybody laughed at the idea of the flip-top communicators, aren`t they sold now on every High St. Well imagine having your own Holodeck, first stop Middle-Earth please.

[Kath]

Well image having your own Holodeck, first stop Middle-Earth please.

That would be fantastic. You could create your own version of ME with all the things you think should be there completely intact! Of course, this would mean there was no need for any new films.

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Kath

That would be fantastic. You could create your own version of ME with all the things you think should be there completely intact! Of course, this would mean there was no need for any new films.

Honestly, I'd settle for a more book-accurate movie.

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

I think that if there is a remake it won't be for a very long time, like 50 years or something.
But I really can't imagine anything better. I think that the movies struck a very good balance between book and non-book, and told the story very well. I think that any remake that is made wouldn't live up so well. I'm not looking for the book on screen, which is why I am so happy with the movies we have now, at least in part.
The spirit of the books was kept alive, I think, and really I don't see anyone able to do anything better. (Though I know that others will definitely disagree with me on that point).

A re-release sounds nice, though I can't imagine what they'd improve. When they re-released Star Wars, the special effects got a lot better...but I don't really see anything lacking in the effects department for LOTR. Maybe with some bonus interviews and scenes, or a blooper reel, or both. I like the image of all of us in 30 years when they re-release the DVD posting enthusiastically about the good old days.

[Kitanna]

Originally Posted by Neurion

For myself, I'd like to see a trilogy more accurate to the books made...However, changing things like the time Aragorn's taking up Anduril occurs, inserting characters like Galdor, Imrahil, Elladan, Elrohir and Beregond, leaving out the superfluous bits like the drinking game, re-inserting the Scouring of the Shire and cutting back on the amount of screen-time Arwen gets, etc.

I think in order to get a vision of such a thing LOTR should be a mini-series. That is the only way to get many things in (such as Merry, Pippin, Sam, and Fatty helping Frodo move, Scouring of the Shire, Erkenbrand at Helm's Deep, Tom Bombadil, and so on). If the books were made into movies again and things added that many books fans wanted to see then the movies would never end.

[Nimrodel_9]

I'm not sure if I would like a remake unless it has been about 30 years. If they did remake the films I hope they would go off of the books more, not the other films.

[Neurion]

Personally, I 'd love more than anything to choreograph the battle scenes. A lot of complaints from the European martial arts community towards medieval/fantasy films deal with some rather silly conventions the film makers seem loath to abandon in their depiction of sword combat.

I'd want to do it the proper way, e.g. arrows will not penetrate plate armour (unless perhaps Elven arrows), swords will not be clashed together edge-on-edge, cavalry charges will not be conducted without benefit of shields and lances (and not by the Gondorians, who were almost exclusively infantry-based at that point), the list goes on.

I can just imagine Aragorn executing the murder-stroke with Anduril...

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Lord of the Rings will never be remade, but not for the same reason Star Wars will never be remade.

In my opinion, the only reason Star Wars will never be remade is because of Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, and Harrison Ford. Those three actors embodied their roles and helped to immortalize Lucas' galaxy. Yes, there is the matter that the movies are awesome, especially for their time, but to me, that's secondary.

Lord of the Rings will never be remade because there's no point. What's going to impress you in a remake? They've already got ten thousand Uruk-Hai attacking Helm's Deep, they've already got the camera following Leggy's arrow right into an Orc's forehead, and they've already got the epic Pelennor Fields. What can really be improved? Sure, I know technology twenty years from now may make LOTR seem to us like the old Star Wars now do, but I don't see how it can be improved upon much.

Like it or not, Peter Jackson has made the definitive Lord of the Rings, for film.

My $0.02.

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Elladan and Elrohir

Lord of the Rings will never be remade because there's no point. What's going to impress you in a remake? They've already got ten thousand Uruk-Hai attacking Helm's Deep, they've already got the camera following Leggy's arrow right into an Orc's forehead, and they've already got the epic Pelennor Fields. What can really be improved? Sure, I know technology twenty years from now may make LOTR seem to us like the old Star Wars now do, but I don't see how it can be improved upon much.

It's too bad I can't visually show you how I'd change it (hopefully for the better).

Unfortunately, no one can really be told how it could be improved- you have to see it for yourself.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Elladan and Elrohir

Lord of the Rings will never be remade because there's no point. What's going to impress you in a remake? They've already got ten thousand Uruk-Hai attacking Helm's Deep, they've already got the camera following Leggy's arrow right into an Orc's forehead, and they've already got the epic Pelennor Fields. What can really be improved? Sure, I know technology twenty years from now may make LOTR seem to us like the old Star Wars now do, but I don't see how it can be improved upon much.

Like it or not, Peter Jackson has made the definitive Lord of the Rings, for film.

I would have to disagree. Hollywood is notorious for remaking films ad nauseum - whether the remake is better, worse, exact, modified - as they tend to go with what works/worked. And aren't plays by Shakespeare still being performed? How old's that stuff, and hasn't all of his works been done to death?

There was a time when the Bakshi movie was the end-all, be-all, yet here we are in another century with a new production. Think what life will be like in 20 or 30 years. If I were to look back that much time, most if not all of what you may take for granted wasn't here, wasn't available or wasn't even imagined. Think the original Star Trek TV series - in the Sixties people couldn't even conceive that in the 23d century that a person could carry a device with a color image screen, like most cell phones have today. Look at the evolution of computers! What will they bring to the movies in that many years? Like no more live actors ?

Plus, back in the Glorious 80's, my friends and I started filming our own version of LOTR. Surely JRRT is grave-spinning due to our 'rewrite ,' yet we too were inspired by the books to make a movie. Wanna bet that there's someone out there right now who has read the books and/or watched the PJ movies and thinks that he/she can make a better flick?

Anyway, I've posted my thoughts earlier in the thread, but just wanted to point out that LOTR will be remade in my lifetime..hopefully by my children so that I can due a cameo - I have my carrot at the ready.

[Bêthberry]

Most here are, I would think, assuming some kind of straightforward remake of the LotR. Yet once the copyright wears out--will it ever?--there could well be many different takes on how to re-imagine the story for film.

I can imagine a film made solely from, say, Eowyn's POV. It wouldn't begin with The Shire of course, but it would cover aspects of the story only lightly treated in the books and instead of glorifying a return of the king it could feature the problems peole in Ithilien and Rohan face in restoring some semblance of social order. What about the battle in Erebor and Dale? Would it be possible to create a film which so thoroughly eclipsed the story of the Ring? Now that would be a creative challenge.

Would a post-modern, sardonic version be possible which would focus on the long defeat rather than Frodo and Sam's heroism? How about a completely revisited version set in the Seventh Age? It's done with Shakespeare, as Alatar suggests.

Would that someone as creative as Zhang Yimou conceive of such a remake.

[Anguirel]

Originally Posted by alatar

Plus, back in the Glorious 80's, my friends and I started filming our own version of LOTR. Surely JRRT is grave-spinning due to our 'rewrite ,' yet we too were inspired by the books to make a movie. Wanna bet that there's someone out there right now who has read the books and/or watched the PJ movies and thinks that he/she can make a better flick?

Me too! A couple of old schoolfriends and I are (painfully slowly) "remaking" LOTR...we've reached the Council of Elrond.

So far I've got myself the roles of Butterbur, Aragorn, Arwen and Boromir...one my friends is Sauron, Bilbo, Frodo, Pippin, and Legolas, while the other is Isildur, Gandalf, (a "gangsta rappin' wizard", somewhat to my horror, but undeniably amusingly), Sam, Merry and Gimli (in "prosthetics" consisting of all the overcoats and scarves in the house.)

Oh, and the Nazgul? Their dread number consists of two extremely threatening looking black cats, (quite difficult to film, but with rewarding results!), several black teddy bears on strings, and a badger handpuppet.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Anguirel

Me too! A couple of old schoolfriends and I are (painfully slowly) "remaking" LOTR...we've reached the Council of Elrond.

Good luck with your project. Is a visit to Cannes far off?

Our remake was entitled "The War of the Ring" as we didn't want anyone to confuse our version with that of Bakshi. We used many of the JRRT character names, included a Ring and sort of followed the general story line, but other than that it was mostly out of our heads. Definitely a spoof. I had a hand in writing the script, and so can say that not only was the screenplay atrocious, but the story made little sense. Given different names, one may never know that it was Tolkien-based (hmm...one might say that of other's works too ). I got to be Gandalf (I have no! acting abilities) and wrote myself a love interest named Tinúviel (I had a crush on the woman playing this character, and so... ).

Problem was that we received no support from our families, who just didn't get what we were doing - yes, it was like that back then too - nor a school program that we pretended to be doing the project for - "Sure, you can make a film for your class project; we just won't help you do it." And this was back in the days when VHS was just starting out. Our school had a videocamera, and we could *use* it, yet were not permitted to leave the school with it. Try shooting the Bridge scene or Weathertop in your school's hallway .

So we used Super 8MM film. Each minute of film cost about $5 (to buy it and have it developed), and as I made about $5 a week cutting lawns...well, you do the math. Every scene was run twice 'dry,' then we did the one and only final take. At times the script was rewritten to account for what was filmed. We drew up contracts for the actors, and part of their contract was that they had to supply their own costumes. One such costume was a white garbage bag! And my buddy spliced the scenes together using ordinary clear tape and scissors, and so you can see that it was a real production.

So we didn't get very far. Would like to start again sometime, but with the kids, don't have that kind of time to spend.

Note that this footage has become priceless as all of the cast and crew are now about 100 years older, and it's so funny to look back at how we looked and what we did, etc. So if you can, do it.

Anyway, again good luck.

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Most I can imagine a film made solely from, say, Eowyn's POV. It wouldn't begin with The Shire of course, but it would cover aspects of the story only lightly treated in the books and instead of glorifying a return of the king it could feature the problems peole in Ithilien and Rohan face in restoring some semblance of social order.

Interesting idea.

By the same the same token, I'd love to see a "grunt's-eye-view" film, showing the perspective of the average Gondorian soldier.

[Mithalwen]

In "my version" also would have a different viewpoint . One of the things that wasn't really tackled in PJ's version to my mind is the workings of destiny. I think I would have started in Gondor with the threat of war and Faramir's dream ....which summoned a son of Denethor to Imladris long before Frodo set out but more or less the same time as Gollum escapes the woodelves. Needless to say there would be lots more character development and a lot fewer tedious battle scenes.

[Anguirel]

Hmmm. Big surprise coming up; in my version...

...the entire story would be told through the eyes and voice of Maglor!

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Anguirel

Hmmm. Big surprise coming up; in my version...

...the entire story would be told through the eyes and voice of Maglor!

With intermittent intervals for him to sing sad songs on his harp by the sea, no doubt.

[Anguirel]

Exactly, Neurion, you read my mind...

[Lush]

Maybe when I'm 85 my great-grandchildren are going to drag me to a re-make. I'm going to sit there and tell them that the old Legolas was much hotter than the new Legolas, and that back in my day we had to walk to the movie theater barefoot in the snow, uphill both ways.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lush

Maybe when I'm 85 my great-grandchildren are going to drag me to a re-make. I'm going to sit there and tell them that the old Legolas was much hotter than the new Legolas, and that back in my day we had to walk to the movie theater barefoot in the snow, uphill both ways.

When you are 85, anyone that you can still see who is under the age of 50 will appear 'hot,' though you really won't be sure what that means anymore...

[Lush]

When you are 85, anyone that you can still see who is under the age of 50 will appear 'hot,' though you really won't be sure what that means anymore...

If I take after my great-grandmother at all, may she rest in peace, then I might just be one feisty and sane old lady (assuming that fiesty and sane are not mutually exclusive). May the Legolases of the future beware my judgement.

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Anguirel

Exactly, Neurion, you read my mind...

Actually, that may not be a bad idea. A little "arty", mayhap, but rather poetic, I shouldn't wonder.

[Legolas]

I certainly hope so. I hope to see a more serious remake.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Neurion

Do you suppose that another film of The Lord of the Rings will be made in the future, and if so, how do you think it would be changed? Would you like to see a remake, if well done?

Me and the Mrs. had a rare 'childless' night last night, and so went out to see the movie "Avatar" in 3D by James Cameron.

Wow!

Okay, so the story isn't Tolkien, but I had to continually remind myself that Pandora (the planet on which the story takes place) and all of its inhabitants - flora and fauna - weren't real.

Wow!

Seeing that, there are no limits. We could actually see Lothlorien as it was meant to be, or any other place or creature that Tolkien imagined.

Hope someone takes this new technology and uses it to film, once again, LotR.

[davem]

Seems PJ is aiming to have a 3d version of LotR out in (possibly) 2012 http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle6982297.ece

Peter Jackson, director of The Lord of the Rings, said last spring that he wanted to reissue the trilogy in 3-D if Avatar persuaded enough cinemas to put in new 3-D projectors. Last week technicians at Weta, the production company that had worked on the trilogy, said they had experimented with 3-D battle scenes and proclaimed them to be “gob-smacking”.

The Lord of the Rings is expected to be re-released after Jackson has finished producing the two-part version of JRR Tolkien’s The Hobbit over the next two years. This would mean that a 3-D version of The Fellowship of the Ring, the first part of the trilogy, could be in cinemas by Christmas 2012.

so those so inclined will soon be able to experience a nazgul flying into their face, or Gollum dumping a couple of coneys in their lap.....

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

Seems PJ is aiming to have a 3d version of LotR out in (possibly) 2012 http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle6982297.ece

so those so inclined will soon be able to experience a nazgul flying into their face, or Gollum dumping a couple of coneys in their lap.....

Thanks, davem, for the link.

The 3D, to me, is secondary to the other technology, such as mocap and the digital (yet real-seeming) worlds.

Maybe PJ will take a moment and put a big 3D smile this time on prone Gandalf's face when the Wizard faces the Witch-King.

[Thinlómien]

3D version of the movies? Huh.

As for the original question, I would definitely love to see a different version of LotR on screen, just for the sake of it. Now Mith's suggestion of starting with Faramir's dream really made my imagination race... *almost runs away to start writing a script*

[davem]

Don't know how many of you have seen this article via the link on ToRn http://www.salon.com/entertainment/m...otr/index.html but there are some interesting comments on what PJ got wrong - this analysis in particular (I'll quote it in full here as some of the other points in the piece include some 'adult' language):

In Tolkien's storytelling, every character lives in relation to the background myths. It is in relation to those -- the tales contained in the almost immemorially ancient Silmarillion, and the many others that Tolkien had already spent a lifetime defining by the time he started working on LOTR -- that every character in LOTR -- elf, dwarf, wizard, human, defines himself.

But Jackson's script destroys this. The destruction isn't all that apparent in "Fellowship of the Ring," but with each of the next two films it encroaches further and further on the story as originally told. Characters such as Elrond, Gimli, Denethor, and Treebeard, as the film defines them, are pathetic travesties of those Tolkien gave us in his three volumes.

One way of seeing Tolkien's achievement is that he gave us real, presumably complex persons, with extensive interior lives, acting in a moral universe defined by the huge expanse of their cultural myths. Every significant choice that Aragorn makes, he makes against a historical background: he knows the history of the Rangers, the Dunedain, stretching back to Gondor and the Numenoreans. He knows his heritage.

The same is true of the other participants in the attempt to destroy the One Ring. None of them has any private motive apart from those provided by their cultures.

Except for the hobbits. They, common little people, have no such history. In their folktales, the memorable items are the blizzard of '78, or somebody's great-grandfather who was big enough to ride a horse. They did not participate in any of the world-defining and world-transforming events that constrain the other members of the Fellowship. They have no prior cultural commitments regarding any of the large issues that are involved for anyone else. So Sam and Frodo, and even Merry and Pippin, as Tolkien tells the story, have plenty of reason to wonder to each other why they are doing this. None of the other members of the Fellowship ever talk about their motives.

Jackson's script wipes out this distinction. Completely. Everybody in the Fellowship, it turns out, has some personal axe to grind.

That may have been innocent enough at first. It's not unreasonable, perhaps, to say to oneself, "Well, viewers need something to identify with, some little idiosyncrasy or weakness in their heroes. One can't expect them to watch abstract principles in action." But then, by the last film, we have Denethor presented as a pathetic, self-centered fool rather than as the tragically misguided figure, heroically sacrificing himself to an empty model of quasi-roman heroism. We have Gollum, free of his mindless obsession with the precious, enacting a preposterous plot to turn Frodo and Sam against each other. We have Gimli become one of the three stooges. We have Elrond and Arwen acting out petulant parent/child arguments.

And the biggest howler of all, Frodo, at Mount Doom, announcing his inability to free himself from the Ring in words and gestures that might be lifted straight from an old Fu Manchu movie. Yuk and double-yuk.

Oh, and the Ents. Don't get me started on what Jackson did to them. In the film, they are comic figures and they are stupid. They are dumbed down to where, in just two sentences, Merry can persuade Treebeard to completely reverse his course and take them near Isengard.

In order to provide this endearing touch, Jackson had to rewrite the Entmoot so that it turns out exactly the opposite of Tolkien's Entmoot: the ents decide to have nothing to do with the coming battle. Jackson's cinematic requirement for the endearing weakness has conquered all: myths, legends, and finally even Middle-Earth common-sense. None of these characters has any heroic resonance at all. If Jackson wanted viewers to feel as though his characters could have come off the street, as though we could sit down and have a beer with Boromir -- well, unhappily, he succeeded all too well. (my bolding)

Now, this isn't (honestly) intended to start the whole 'let's slag off the movies' debate again, but to point out that the real challenge in bringing Tolkien's story to the screen is not about technology, but about insight into the meaning of the story. Jackson just didn't get the point of the story - & his desire to turn it into 3D confirms for me that he has always been incapable of understanding what Tolkien was doing (China Mieville's comment on Jackson's omission of the Scouring is worth quoting again http://www.tolkienlibrary.com/press/...on_Tolkien.php

Unlike so many of those he begat, Tolkien's vision, never mind any Hail-fellow-well-met-ery, no matter the coziness of the shire, despite even the remorseless sylvan bonheur of Tom Bombadil, is tragic. The final tears in characters' and readers' eyes are not uncomplicatedly of happiness. On the one hand, yay, the goodies win: on the other, shame that the entire epoch is slipping from Glory. The magic goes west, of course, but there's also the peculiar abjuring of narrative form, in the strange echo after the final battle, the Lord of the Rings's post-end end, the Harrowing of the Shire--so criminally neglected by Jackson. In an alternate reality, this piece of scripting would have earned talented young tattooed hipster video-game designer Johnno Tolkien a slapped wrist from his studio: since when do you put a lesser villain straight after the final Boss Battle? But that's the point. The episode concludes 'well', of course, so far as it goes, but in its very pettiness relative to what's just been, it is brilliantly unsatisfying, ushering in an era of degraded parodies of epics, where it's not just the elves that are going: you can't even get a proper Dark Lord any more. Whatever we see as the drive behind Tolkien's tragic vision, and however we relate to its politics and aesthetics, the tragedy of the creeping tawdry quotidian gives Middle Earth a powerful melancholia lamentably missing from too much of what followed. It deserves celebrating and reclaiming.

Its not about 'mocap' or 3D, or even holographic technology - all that's needed is a director who understands the story & has the ability to put that understanding on screen (or whatever medium).

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

Its not about 'mocap' or 3D, or even holographic technology - all that's needed is a director who understands the story & has the ability to put that understanding on screen (or whatever medium).

Excellent articles, davem. I couldn't agree more regarding Jackson's hatchet job. My point, as this is a thread about the advances in technology over time (don't think that in 30 years, Tolkien's works will be any different ) is that, with the example of "Avatar," no longer can a filmmaker hide behind the excuse of "Well, we couldn't film that, so we decided to completely diverge from the source material."

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Originally Posted by davem

Its not about 'mocap' or 3D, or even holographic technology - all that's needed is a director who understands the story & has the ability to put that understanding on screen (or whatever medium).

Or more specifically, a writer who understands the story and has the ability to adapt it with respect, combined with a director and producers who also have respect for the original work and not merely the almighty dollar. I have long been amazed that some of the very things Tolkien himself thought were done wrong back in the days when Forrest Ackerman held the screenrights and tried to present the Professor with a script were things that Jackson apparently embraced. If he truly had been as determined to remain faithful to the books as he promised the fans in the years before the first film was released, he would've come across that particular letter and paid attention to it.

At any rate, to go back to the original question, I would love to see another film adaptation done of LotR, one that stayed true to the substance of the book and not merely to the appearance of the settings and costumes and props. As for the matter of a "definitive version," that can only been determined after there is more than one version to contrast and compare (Bakshi hardly counts, as he never finished the job). There are myriad adaptations of other classic works -- my sister has made a hobby of collecting different film and TV versions of the works of Jane Austen, for instance, and I have several friends who collect every film and audio version of A Christmas Carol that they can find. Which, if any, is "definitive"? That, like so much of art, is in the eye and tastes of the beholder. As Jackson's version is the only complete film adaptation of LotR, I would not call it definitive, and would hope that other people will try to outdo him -- in accuracy, if nothing else. But I hold little hope that this will happen in my lifetime. I'm now closer to 60 than I am to 50, and so long as the rights remain with a studio that is continuing to milk the franchise for all it's worth, there's no chance that someone else will even be given the opportunity to attempt another adaptation. More's the pity, IMHO.

[Archaic Elf]

Originally Posted by Elladan and Elrohir

Lord of the Rings will never be remade, but not for the same reason Star Wars will never be remade.

In my opinion, the only reason Star Wars will never be remade is because of Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, and Harrison Ford. Those three actors embodied their roles and helped to immortalize Lucas' galaxy. Yes, there is the matter that the movies are awesome, especially for their time, but to me, that's secondary.

Lord of the Rings will never be remade because there's no point. What's going to impress you in a remake? They've already got ten thousand Uruk-Hai attacking Helm's Deep, they've already got the camera following Leggy's arrow right into an Orc's forehead, and they've already got the epic Pelennor Fields. What can really be improved? Sure, I know technology twenty years from now may make LOTR seem to us like the old Star Wars now do, but I don't see how it can be improved upon much.

Like it or not, Peter Jackson has made the definitive Lord of the Rings, for film.

My $0.02.

Like Alatar said, every few decades, a classic film is remade. They just remade the Karate Kid for some reason. They'll probably want to remake the Rocky movies in thirty years with a younger actor that people will be fawning over at that time. They'll probably remake any major franchise that can be squeezed for a few more pennies. It's that simple.

PJ's film is not perfection, so someone will try to make it better in thirty years from now. Film studios will do anything if it turns a nice profit. The new films will probably be as far beyond Jacksons' films as Jackson was beyond the lame Bakshi film.

Star Wars won't be remade. No, Lucas will keep splicing out the footage of Harrison Ford and the others and putting them over newer and grander CG backgrounds. He's already done it a few times, and he'll do it a few more, taking on extra scenes in the process. Just wait till the Star Wars movies are ready for 3D.

[Galadriel]

Not really. Lord of the Rings is a very hard film to make. I think only PJ and his team could have done the task. In any case, they did what was necessary, even though I found a lot of the changes annoying.