The Lord of the Rings, an Amazon joint


#121

You’d think if Amazon can afford the $500 mil for the rights, they could afford a real artist to lead the project. But then again…


#122

Fuck Tolkien’s family. $200 million? Greedy worthless sponging fucks.

I think I’ll boycott this just to say screw you to them.


#123

Tolkien wrote the stories for his children as I recall. I am glad he did.


#124

Also, with the movies, at first there was a lot of worries that Peter Jackson – whose previous works didn’t really inspire a lot of confidence – would just mess it all up. My expectations walking into Fellowship were so low, I was just praying for the movie to not suck. Instead, I walked away amazing. I watched it again a few months ago and it is hard to believe the movie is almost 20 years old.


#125

Stephen Colbert?


#126

#127

That’s pretty cool. Even though Aragorn wasn’t much of a character in the books, he really intrigued me in the movies, and I wanted to know more about him.


#128

Bad sign for me. I hoped they were doing Silmarillion, not a rehash of the Rings trilogy right off the bat.


#129

Makes sense to me. There’s a ton of stuff to cover where Aragorn travelled and rode with the Rohirrim, and went to Minas Tirith to serve the Stewards in disguise. There’s the whole of the romance with Arwen to experience as well. Lots of adventures with his band of Rangers defending the Shire and doing missions for Gandalf presumably, too. It’s a natural inroad to so many important locations in a naturally episodic format.


#130

Is there any word on whether this will be GoT’ified (gore / nudity / ambiguous ethics / unexpected deaths) or kept to PG-13 high fantasy?


#131

Yeah, I actually think this is a good choice for them. A recognizable character given a backstory. A familiar setting, but earlier, with some room to both use Tolkien’s material but also a bit of freedom. Hopefully they don’t sex it up too much, but if they can establish a viewer base with this, they could move on to meatier stuff.


#132

I’d be surprised if it did.

GOT doesn’t have gore/nudity/ambiguous ethics because HBO insisted on that. It has those things because they’re consistent with the source material and writing–the SOIAF series is rife with sex, brutal violence, and moral shades of gray.

LOTR is at least fairly sex-less, and it’s hard to imagine them going there on language either. It just kind of doesn’t fit tonally with Tolkein. Violence though? Sure. That fits.


#133

I agree, but GoT became such a ratings behemoth I can imagine the network execs trying to borrow these elements for any fantasy universe.


#134

Any network that mis-reads that nudity and excessive violence were the reason for the success of GoT deserves the money pit ratings disaster they get. Pretty sure that Bastard Executioner should have set a clear example industry-wide that all the excessiveness in the world can’t overcome bad characters, lousy plotting and uninspired storytelling.


#135

I hope they keep it pretty minimal. I don’t know the author would’ve appreciated anything too graphic. GoT’s source material was always pretty adult but LoTR really isn’t.


#136

I would think the family probably put some restrictions on how LOTR is presented.


#137

I’m not sure how you could do the Silmarillion without spending a season per story for the major chapters. Say one season setting the background, primarily following Feanor and ending with his death. Second season possibly following his sons or maybe Beren and Luthien. Third season Turambar. Anything else would be too chaotic for viewers to follow.


#138

As tragic as that story is, as a lot of them are, they’d at least be stories we haven’t seen before. It would be pretty cool if they did that.


#139

Exactly what I was hoping for - it’s a really cool story.


#140

“Young Aragorn?”

Could have gone for the Fall of Arnor and the Witch King. And we get “Young Aragorn”?

Not impressed.