Support NeoGAF

[Oberstein]

With time, yes, you'll say. But after the fairly average "Hobbit" and especially the disappointing Rings of Power, we're left with the same problem as Star Wars. Lucas' first trilogy was (almost) perfect, but the following ones have never matched it.

PJ's first trilogy continues to be incredible, almost 22 years after the release of Fotr. Even if there are shortcuts from the books, even if Legolas overdoes it, even if the ending in the Shire is too watered-down, etc., etc., it's still a great achievement.

Warner Bros recently announced that they were going to remake the Lotr films, but I already think it's a lost cause. The first trilogy arrived at exactly the right time, in the early 2000s. No woke agenda on the horizon, no forced diversity at the cost of coherence, not too much repulsive CGI that makes the film get old very quickly, etc.




Above all, seeing this video of all the filmed sequences that have never been re-released, I tell myself that I'd rather see these sequences reworked than a new iteration.

Inevitably, sooner or later, decades from now, there will come a time when we'll be able to do better, but it's still a long way off. What's more, the license is cursed when it comes to video game adaptations. Since the PS2 era, we haven't had a single interesting one.

I still remember the New Zealand premieres and the extras in costume from the film walking around like Stormtroopers, it was really a Star Wars 1977 moment.

What's your opinion?

 

[Pegasus Actual]

What's your opinion?

My opinion is the photographer was like "Can I get a picture with the four hobbits?" and then Frodo and the one from Lost looked at each other, greasy hobbitses that they are, and were like "Liv why not slide in and join us for a picture?", and I bet you their hands went as close to her bum as possible and god dammit Frodo, having learned a lesson about bravery from JRR Tolkien himself over those last few years, did indeed cup one of her cheeks.

Also, yeah, let's not reboot that shit, it was pretty good, and most reboots suck.

 

[NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt]

With time, yes, you'll say. But after the fairly average "Hobbit" and especially the disappointing Rings of Power, we're left with the same problem as Star Wars. Lucas' first trilogy was (almost) perfect, but the following ones have never matched it.

PJ's first trilogy continues to be incredible, almost 22 years after the release of Fotr. Even if there are shortcuts from the books, even if Legolas overdoes it, even if the ending in the Shire is too watered-down, etc., etc., it's still a great achievement.

Warner Bros recently announced that they were going to remake the Lotr films, but I already think it's a lost cause. The first trilogy arrived at exactly the right time, in the early 2000s. No woke agenda on the horizon, no forced diversity at the cost of coherence, not too much repulsive CGI that makes the film get old very quickly, etc.




Above all, seeing this video of all the filmed sequences that have never been re-released, I tell myself that I'd rather see these sequences reworked than a new iteration.

Inevitably, sooner or later, decades from now, there will come a time when we'll be able to do better, but it's still a long way off. What's more, the license is cursed when it comes to video game adaptations. Since the PS2 era, we haven't had a single interesting one.

I still remember the New Zealand premieres and the extras in costume from the film walking around like Stormtroopers, it was really a Star Wars 1977 moment.

What's your opinion?

 

[Daneel Elijah]

We got 2 scarface movies and both are great so why not? Just need to wait until 2052 please! By then the tech will be there to make the world closer to the books. AI will do it for us. But I fear that they can't do it without changing a lot to "adapt it to modern audiences" and my opinion on that is clear:

 

[AJUMP23]

Can there be better sure. They did change things with Arwen and removed Tom Bombadil. It was also Legolas that saves Frodo from the Nazgûl blade and not Arwen.

But as for the spirit of the books. They are captured excellently in the films.

 

[Oberstein]

My opinion is the photographer was like "Can I get a picture with the four hobbits?" and then Frodo and the one from Lost looked at each other, greasy hobbitses that they are, and were like "Liv why not slide in and join us for a picture?", and I bet you their hands went as close to her bum as possible and god dammit Frodo, having learned a lesson about bravery from JRR Tolkien himself over those last few years, did indeed cup one of her cheeks.

Can you really blame them?
I mean...

Spoiler

Also, yeah, let's not reboot that shit, it was pretty good, and most reboots suck.

So there's no hope for the license.

 

[Trunx81]

Every non-film related storyline, from past and present, should be protected from the hands that guide Hollywood these days.

I remember some outcry when the first trailer arrived. The fans that missed Tommy B. The casting of Wood as Frodo ("too young!"). And Arwen, boy, that was a controversy. But I loved every one of the 3 movies to death, amazing craftsmanship with heart and full dedication.

 

[Oberstein]

Just need to wait until 2052 please! By then the tech will be there to make the world closer to the books. AI will do it for us.

Just a few minutes of Midjourney can do better than a $500 million train wreck.

Can there be better sure. They did change things with Arwen and removed Tom Bombadil. It was also Legolas that saves Frodo from the Nazgûl blade and not Arwen.

But as for the spirit of the books. They are captured excellently in the films.

I can't see how they could have integrated Tom Bombadil, it's such a departure from the rest of the book.

And yes, in a broad sense, you can always do better by adding Glorfindel, making Boromir a Chad who makes the Balrog tremble in fear by howling in his horn, etc., but as you said, the whole thing is respectful (even if Christopher Tolkien hated them, but that's understandable given his position).

 

[Jsisto]

From a purely cinematic and special effects standpoint, it’s hard to imagine there being enough room for improvement. I don’t even think it should be a conversation for at least another twenty years. Damn near perfect movies

 

[Badlucktroll]

I say the Tolkein estate should just fucking let Peter Jackson make some Silmarillion movies

 

[Sleepwalker]

This thread reminds me I need to get the 4k set, which one is the best physical edition for this trilogy? I'm due a rewatch asap.


And no I don't think they will be topped.

 

[Oberstein]

And Arwen, boy, that was a controversy.

What was the controversy with her?
I remember there was a lot of talk about the leaked images of Arwen at Helm's Deep. By the way, this sequence would obviously have been added to the film if it had been shot today... but back then, the emphasis was on consistency, not "we need a strong woman on screen".

But I loved every one of the 3 movies to death, amazing craftsmanship with heart and full dedication.

We can't thank Weta enough for all their hard work. As much as I dislike many of The Hobbit's choices, the quality of the costumes has always been present on screen.

And they always work wonders.

 

[Straight Edge]

Can there be better sure. They did change things with Arwen and removed Tom Bombadil. It was also Legolas that saves Frodo from the Nazgûl blade and not Arwen.

But as for the spirit of the books. They are captured excellently in the films.

No, it was Glorfindel.

 

[Trunx81]

Arwen rescuing Frodo instead of Legolas.
Having a role that was not on par with the books. A lot of hate in total. Stupid cave trolls.

What was the controversy with her?
I remember there was a lot of talk about the leaked images of Arwen at Helm's Deep. By the way, this sequence would obviously have been added to the film if it had been shot today... but back then, the emphasis was on consistency, not "we need a strong woman on screen".

 

[Werewolf Jones]

LotR movies were the right place at the right time. Why do we need better than what we have?

 

[ADiTAR]

Talent+standards are fading today. Looking at movies in the 90's 2000's, they had so much heart. Characters felt real. Camera was a window into a different world.

 

[DrFigs]

They're not perfect movies. Lots of typical hollywood quips, weird comedic/action scenes that don't fit in the medieval tone, and badly aged cgi. there's room for improvement. in principle i'm not against remaking the trilogy, but i'm pretty sure they'd only make the movies worse.

 

[StueyDuck]

Can there? Probably

Will there however? In 2023... fuck no

 

[haxan7]

It was always too campy for me. So a version that was directed in the style of, say, James Cameron or Ridley Scott would automatically come out on top for me.

 

[NecrosaroIII]

I think the Peter Jackson movies are really good, but they're not perfect. In terms of tone, I actually prefer the 1980 BBC radio version.

I would like a version that kind of plays up the anachronistic nature of the Hobbits against the mythic nature of the people they encounter. The hobbits are essentially supposed to be Edwardian middle class dudes (except Sam, who is lower class).

Peter Jackson made some changes to the characters that I disagree with.

- Frodo was more "scholarly" and mature in the book. His knowledge of the outside world helped out more in the book, especially early on. I much prefer Ian Holme or Orson Bean's take on the character than Elijah Wood's (though I appreciate it

- Sam is perfect

- Pippin was much better in the book. He was basically an inexperienced teenager in the novel. In the movie, PJ turned him into a retard. Especially really on. I'd like to see a characterization closer to the novel

- Merry felt much more closer to Frodo in the novel and I liked his dynamic. It's implied that Merry was actually Frodo's best friend and very much his social equal. He feels like a bumpkin in the movies.

- Gandalf of course was perfect in the movies.

- I have mixed feelings on Aragorn. I love Viggo's performance, but I think he was too much Strider and not enough Aragorn. He doesn't come across as kingly enough in the movies. It works for what PJ was trying to do, but I could see a different adaptation handling it differently and still doing a great job. They need someone very tall, or else his name doesn't make sense

- Boromir. PJ made this character much more interesting than in the book. Love the energy that Sean Bean brought to the character

- Legolas was fun in the PJ movies, but I'd like to see a take on the character that feels more otherworldly like the elves are supposed to be. I think thats a larger problem I have with how the elves were handled. They felt too grounded. And I don't mean doing SICK STUNTZ. I mean, they feel too human.

- Gimli needs to be far less brunt of jokes and more bad ass warrior

- Denethor doesn't need to be a cartoon villain. That sapped him of all interest in his character in the movie. He was a competent leader in the book. His death is supposed to be tragic, not a victory

I don't know if I need Tom Bombadil in a new adaptation (though I'd appreciate him in a tv series), but Scouring of the Shire is one of the main points of the story and having it removed kinda defeats the point.

Whatever they do though, they should really start off by adapting The Hobbit first before LotR. A) It deserved FAR better than what PJ's team did to it. B) Bilbo is awesome and having that bridge in continuity is key. He should have looked the same between LotR and The Hobbit. When Gandalf says "You haven't aged a day" he meant it literary

 

[Futaleufu]

I dont think "improvement" is the word to use here but I think there is still space for an artist to depict a "different" take on the tale

 

[Happosai]

People can't make movies anymore. There can't be a better adaptation but to be fair, Jackson's wasn't the first. Don't forget Bakshi's LoTR and the remainder (which were not under his direction) from the 70's.

 

[K' Dash]

There’s always room for improvement, but in this day and age, that won’t ever happen, everyone and everything bows down to politics and forced inclusion.

The movies are perfect anyway.

 

[violence]

I like forced diversity in my period pieces. It makes them feel like modern day.

One the reasons the old trilogy was as good as it was, was the over three years of planning. Which I think only happened because it changed studios. The films benefited greatly from that. Contrast that with the hobbit trilogy, were the first thing they thought of was what it was going to be.

I really don’t see a point of rebooting the Lord of the rings unless they’re going to do something substantially different like make it six movies and use all the thrown out material.

 

[NecrosaroIII]

I like forced diversity in my period pieces. It makes them feel like modern day.

One the reasons the old trilogy was as good as it was, was the over three years of planning. Which I think only happened because it changed studios. The films benefited greatly from that. Contrast that with the hobbit trilogy, were the first thing they thought of was what it was going to be.

I really don’t see a point of rebooting the Lord of the rings unless they’re going to do something substantially different like make it six movies and use all the thrown out material.

This post hints at a larger issue. Since PJs movies brought attention to the franchise from the studio system, any movie made will have tons of studio influence (like the hobbit and the second age show have).

LotRs production mostly flew under the radar. That won't happen again

 

[eddie4]

It's going to be remade, no doubt about it. Everything has been remade, so, eventually, someone will ruin it.

 

[nkarafo]

Here's the problem with classics: They become iconic.

The LOTR trilogy isn't even in my top 10. But it has become so iconic that even i would find it difficult to accept something different.

Classic/iconic = Familiar. Frodo is Elijah. Aragorn is Viggo. Gandalf is Ian. Legolas is Orlando.

It's very difficult to accept other, unfamiliar faces in the roles. Even if a new movie would be absolutely perfect, the new actors would feel wrong every time. Same goes for style/direction. If Tarantino directs the new movie, it will feel completely wrong even if his adaption would be perfect. LOTR is epic, whimsical and PG-13. It also has a lot of bloom.

So, is there a way out? For our generation, the ones who grew up with these movies and characters, no. We are stuck. We can't accept something different. But the next generations do have a chance to watch a better adaption and not feel unfamiliar for them. It could become the same deal like Scarface, Cape Fear or The Thing. Our generation grew up with the (very good) remakes but out mom and dad may actually prefer the originals. I didn't even know the originals existed for the longest time, that's how "out of date" they are.

Although, these originals never became classics like, say, Psycho. So who knows. I can't think of a single movie right now that has become classic/iconic and people prefer a newer adaption. So maybe even the next generations are stuck.

Now if they make it a very high budget cartoon... Maybe.

But all this is fantasy. Media needs to stop catering to "modern audiences" for this to work. They have different priorities now and it's not making good movies.

 

[Happosai]

Now if they make it a very high budget cartoon... Maybe.

But all this is fantasy. Media needs to stop catering to "modern audiences" for this to work. They have different priorities now and that's not making good movies.

Maybe...they did in 1978

 

[Nobody_Important]

LOTR is one of those projects that I feel was done so well and so true to the source material that it may never be touched again in live action. To try and do so would not only be ruinously expensive, but would be utterly daunting for any director or cast to undertake. To fail would be disastrous for everyone involved.

 

[ThatStupidLion]

I think so. Just like batman.

What makes it feel impossible though is that its the first instance of lotr and people are gonna hold that near and dear for life. Nostalgia will only get stronger for it.


Also only fellowship is a legit quality movie. The other two took nosedives.

 

[nkarafo]

Maybe...they did in 1978

I know. It's OK but i still prefer the trilogy.

It needs to be longer, higher budget, etc.

 

[Happosai]

I know. It's OK but i still prefer the trilogy.

It needs to be longer, higher budget, etc.

Careful what you ask for. Similar to how live action filmmakers film in a green room rather than on set; animation is no longer rotoscoped like this. Digital animation is corner cutting art imo. To be fair, Bakshi's team was hit with heavy deadlines and some of the rotoscoping was unfinished.

I agree with your first post though. Classic film is memorable. Therefore, the trilogy (Jackson's) should be left alone.

 

[nkarafo]

Careful what you ask for. Similar to how live action filmmakers film in a green room rather than on set; animation is no longer rotoscoped like this. Digital animation is corner cutting art imo. To be fair, Bakshi's team was hit with heavy deadlines and some of the rotoscoping was unfinished.

I agree with your first post though. Classic film is memorable. Therefore, the trilogy (Jackson's) should be left alone.

All i'm saying is only a cartoon would make people not care about it not being familiar. It would have to be a great cartoon, which i agree, they don't do that nowadays.

 

[Kamina]

No, every new adaptation would be riddled with woke nonsense and politics.

 

[L*][*N*K]

God I really hope they don't reboot these movies and just let them be

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

I love Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy and it is my favourite movie trilogy full stop. I think he captured the essence of the books beautifully, even if he did stray from the source material in some places which I didn't really find bothersome.

I was speaking to a friend and photographer the other night who studied film. Huge Peter Jackson LOTR fan and was describing to me how part of Jackson's ability to capture a sense of really 'being there' is he filmed in all types of different light. For example when Faramir rides off from Gondor in a futile attempt to reclaim Osgiliath(?) ... it was shot in the middle of the day, in really strong light which makes it look 'washed out' but also gives it a sense of reality instead of waiting for the 'golden hour' that other directors might for a similar shot. You could probably also argue he was just trying to get as many shots as he could so didn't want to waste time, but made me think on a subsequent rewatch.

 

[JimmyRustler]

Can it? Maybe, but they should not even attempt it for another 30 years at least.

However, I do doubt they’ll make it. Some other movies in the same universe for sure but not Remakes. Same like with Star Wars.

It would be very expensive to make and the reception of it is basically doomed to be disastrous, except that by some miracle the studio hires the perfect cast and crew.

 

[Liamario]

No. In a few decades they'll go again, but it'll be a different take and not as good. They had lightning in a bottle.

 

[FunkMiller]

They’ll never remake the actual trilogy, the same way they’ll never remake the Star Wars trilogy.

They will continue to make shit prequels and spin offs though, because nobody understands that LotR is the story, and everything else is just background.

The same applies to Star Wars.

 

[Oberstein]

- Legolas was fun in the PJ movies, but I'd like to see a take on the character that feels more otherworldly like the elves are supposed to be. I think thats a larger problem I have with how the elves were handled. They felt too grounded. And I don't mean doing SICK STUNTZ. I mean, they feel too human.

On that point, it mostly depends on the elves and their origins. When you read the Silmarillion, there's a glaring difference between Galadriel and Saeros.

For those who have forgotten, Saeros is the vain elf who will be chased by Turin and killed by falling naked. When you read the dialogue, you'd almost think he was human. The same goes for Gwindor and others. What bothers me most about Legolas is seeing him perform improbable antics while the other elves (Haldir & co) fight "normally".

- Denethor doesn't need to be a cartoon villain. That sapped him of all interest in his character in the movie. He was a competent leader in the book. His death is supposed to be tragic, not a victory

It seems to me that Denethor is quite similar to the books. Honestly, if it's a little less caricatured (but maybe that's John Noble's acting), it's still similar in its approach to the character. Perhaps more thoughtful and a little calmer. Okay, the part where Pippin sings doesn't do him much good.

For our generation, the ones who grew up with these movies and characters, no. We are stuck. We can't accept something different. But the next generations do have a chance to watch a better adaption and not feel unfamiliar for them. It could become the same deal like Scarface, Cape Fear or The Thing. Our generation grew up with the (very good) remakes but out mom and dad may actually prefer the originals. I didn't even know the originals existed for the longest time, that's how "out of date" they are.

Although, these originals never became classics like, say, Psycho. So who knows. I can't think of a single movie right now that has become classic/iconic and people prefer a newer adaption. So maybe even the next generations are stuck.

The argument is valid for many films and series, but in the case of Lotr or the first Star Wars trilogy, it doesn't apply so much. The Star Wars trilogy is still very watchable today, and there are reactions from younger viewers who are thrilled. As for Lotr, the trilogy has aged very little (compared with Lucas' prequels, which have aged a lot).

Star Wars Episode IV came out in 1977, and it's still fun to watch. I'm sure Lotr still has many years to go, and other generations will be interested in it. Go and see the YouTube reactions of those who discover it, they're all in tears at the end.

 

[E-Cat]

I enjoyed FotR and TT, but always felt RotK was cringe.

One thing that no one has mentioned yet is Howard Shore's score. It was such a lightning in a bottle, it would be impossible to top.

 

[ForAcademicPurposes]

Wasn't this one of the first movies that spawned memes on the internet? This and the Matrix probably.

 

[Madflavor]

No I don't think so. A big reason why Jackson's Trilogy worked is because it was made at the right time, and Jackson's crew were allowed to work on the film far away from Hollywood and were able to avoid a lot of studio exec meddling. That wouldn't happen today. Additionally Jackson took quite a few creative liberties with the story, for better or worse, and managed to make ones of the greatest trilogies of all time that won a shit ton of awards. So where do you go from there?

The best thing you can do at this point is make an adaptation that is 100% faithful to the source material. That would be the only different take on the story that is worth making at this point. But uh oh, a 100% faithful to the source material take on Lord of the Rings would not fit in with the mold of Hollywood's "modern sensibilities" for "modern audiences". So this would never happen. Many creative liberties would be taken, helmed by lesser talented filmmakers and writers, the film would be surrounded by culture wars, and in the end we'd be left with lots of frustration and an inferior story.

 

[DGrayson]

I thought the movies were fine, great movies even, but in comparison to the books there really is no comparison. The depth of language and descriptions used by Tolkien could never really be captured on screen. Don't even get me started about a TV series.

 

[tkscz]

Not with today's writers and directors no. Too many of them only want to make THEIR story and piggy back off of another property in order to do so.

The Amazon show takes elements from Tolkien's works, like The Silmarillion and The Untold Tales, but changes the core so drastically you are immediately turned away from it.

Jackson wanted to see the books he so loved come to life as close as possible in the medium he chose. He didn't want to make HIS Lord of the Rings, he wanted to adapt Tolkien's Lord of the Rings as best he could in the confines of three 2.5 hour movies. It wasn't about changing the characters to fit "modern audiences" (and yes that's a phrase used by the show runners of Rings of Power), he just wanted to portray the characters written as they are in the book as close as he could.

 

[IDKFA]

I say the Tolkein estate should just fucking let Peter Jackson make some Silmarillion movies

No

PJ worked magic with LOTR, but really fucked up with the Hobbit.

The Silmarillion is nothing like the LOTR or the Hobbit. People said LOTR was impossible to put into film, but the Silmarillion probably is impossible if you want it to be a perfect adaptation.

I would say leave it, but the Tolkien estate will now accept anything if the cheque is big enough. They have no respect for the source material and will open their cheeks to the highest bidder.

 

[diffusionx]

In 2023 and beyond? No chance. As Hobbit showed, even Peter Jackson couldn't make lightning strike twice, and the Hobbit looks like a masterpiece compared to the Amazon garbage.

 

[EverydayBeast]

Lord of the rings is a book franchise anyway, we’re seeing directors getting together and making it different.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

I dunno how anyone could ever top it in my mind, but maybe. It hit at just the right place and time in my life that it's basically on a pedestal. That said, there definitely are many improvements that could be made...Jackson's decisions in the first two movies kinda hamstring RotK's pacing. But, that means FotR is one of the best movies ever made...

 

[Melon Husk]

He could've made each film a two-parter

One the reasons the old trilogy was as good as it was, was the over three years of planning.

Very apparent in The Hobbit. He had a year? Six months? And had to invent the third movie from scratch while filming?