1747

LOL, as if the movies weren’t a “money-making exercise.”

1748

I mean obviously they wanted to make money from them, but they threw a lot of money at them and made all 3 of them back to back with no guarantees that they would be successful. What they did was pretty unprecedented.

Still, I’m not sure his snobbery is justified, either, without him watching it.

1749

“It’s not like the real thing”. That’s true! The real thing is a book.

1750

We know for a fact the kind of exhaustive research and care Jackson’s team put into the movies thanks to the behind-the-scenes extras. We may not agree with some of the decisions they made, but no one can say Jackson, Boyens, and Walsh was in it just for the money.

As far as this series goes, I’m sure the showrunners were passionate about the project as well. We don’t have any documentary footage of them struggling with lines from the books or discussing what to include or exclude, but I’m certain they put care into it. Again, we may not like the result, but that’s not the same as dashing off a poor product because you only care about money.

I think Bernard may just be disdainful of the series because it’s not a Jackson deal. The cast and crew got really close during their years together, so there’s a tendency to be protective of each other. The series being an Amazon-produced venture may factor into it as well. Lots of old-school actors/directors still feel the streaming service shows are just cash-grab ventures made solely to boost the company catalog.

1751

I’ll take this series over that Hobbit trilogy any day.

1752

Absolutely.

1753

Bernard Hill’s jab is strangely accurate.

The Rings of Power isn’t an adaptation of a story Tolkien wrote.

1754

Still a better show than The Peripheral.

@Murph this question has been tickling me: how big of a risk was it? I know originally whoever pitched the film(s) (Jackson, maybe) envisioned it as one or two movies. The studio came back with ‘this is three films’. I really would love to have been privy to everything that went into New Line’s calculations, simply for the sake of a business fable.

I’m sure Bakshi’s work played a role.

1755

I mean, obviously they believed there was a good enough chance that they went for it, but…spending $280M (in 1999 dollars) to make 3 films in unison with tech that had never been tested (the way they built the CGI armies was totally new) on a property that didn’t have a proven audience? The surprising thing to me is that they put up the money to make all 3 without releasing one and “seeing how it does.” I mean it would’ve been an incomplete story, but it was a lot of money for all 3 on a totally unproven property. I remember in interviews and stuff Jackson talked about what a risk it was for the studios. It was certainly an unprecedented move. Heck, Jackson didn’t even have any real hits to his name at that point.

Obviously they had reasonable confidence that audiences would show up, and we did, but if that first one had bombed they would’ve been totally out the money on 2 and 3.

Undoubtedly true.

1756

Yeah, like if it were a Chess move, there would be a (!) next to it.

Jackson at that point was mainly known for making indy, corny, gross-out horror B-films. I mean, the one I saw was just bent. I guess the studio thought this would translate to some great creature moments, and it did. A very odd combination that reacted to chemical effect. Weta Workshop is like the new Industrial Light & Magic. The care that the crew put into understanding Tolkien’s work is evident.

I just think it’s very cool that the venture paid off. As one who studies business, I’d like to understand the opening decision more.

1757

Interesting comparison. Certainly more expensive, but I think both shows suffer the same fate. Disappointing when compared to the source material, although I would hazard the Tolkein fans were more bitterly disappointedthan the Gibson fans. End of day, the Peripheral is not in the same league as Tolkien’s masterpiece.

1758
1759

Silmarillion isn’t exactly known as a masterpiece.

1760

The funniest thing about this is it skips about 5 episodes where nothing happens.

1761

Classical boiling the frog scenario. It was initially greenlit as two films for a total of $80M and then ballooned step by step.

After Miramax spent $20M on preproduction, they understood that $80M was not realistic for two movies. They could not get more budget, so were going to downscope the project to a single (2 hour) movie instead. Jackson refused, but got permission to find another studio to take over the project within a month before Miramax moved ahead with the single movie and some other director.

So they get rejected even without a meeting by every studio in Hollywood. Last one remaining is New Line; they take that meeting, show their demo reel, and on the spot New Line says “we don’t get it… why would you only do two movies, there’s three books?”

So they get expand to three movies for a total of $180M, and then increased that to $270M mid-project after doing the first public showings of a 20 minute slice.

1762

“We want to spend $280 million on a three-movie package of Lord of the Rings movies, and it’s gotta be directed by the Meet the Feebles guy, or no deal!”

1763

In all fairness, at that point Jackson was already an Oscar nominee for Heavenly Creatures.

1764

It’s a fair point. I just never get tired of pointing out that the guy who directed LotR also directed Feebles, which I don’t necessarily recommend for anyone to watch, but it is for sure something.

1765

Don’t forget Dead Alive. Not entirely sure which of the two is more fucked up.

1766

If the implication here is The Rings of Power is based on The Silmarillion. It isn’t. There is no source material.