Lord of the Rings TV series gets multi-season order at Amazon

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I really hope this thing tanks. I hate to say that about anything associated with Tolkien, but maybe that would at least ensure less outrageous treatment of his world, from the point of view of "enraged die-hards" such as I.

I have a more nuanced approach.

If a miracle happens and it is good I hope it succeeds.

If, as is most likely, it is a porn fest or otherwise terrible, I hope it fails so hard as to eliminate any desire by anybody in pop culture to ever touch Tolkien again with a ten foot pole.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

If a miracle happens and it is good I hope it succeeds.

I guess my only comment there is to wonder what constitutes "good"? That'll be up to the individual.

My belief is that they won't be able to stop themselves "modernizing" the story universe in the name of political correctness, or adding/subtracting characters undreamt of by Tolkien in order to "appeal to everyone". Movie Arwen, Tauriel, shield-surfing teen-idol Legolas, "funny", "eccentric' old Radagast- none of that gives hope for anything I'm going to be able to look at without rolling my eyes and switching off.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

My belief is that they won't be able to stop themselves "modernizing" the story universe in the name of political correctness, or adding/subtracting characters undreamt of by Tolkien in order to "appeal to everyone". Movie Arwen, Tauriel, shield-surfing teen-idol Legolas, "funny", "eccentric' old Radagast- none of that gives hope for anything I'm going to be able to look at without rolling my eyes and switching off.

It will be good if these things don't happen.

I agree that it is unlikely to happen, and indeed I expect much worse out of this than those listed failings, but at least we can define success for them.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I guess my only comment there is to wonder what constitutes "good"? That'll be up to the individual.

My belief is that they won't be able to stop themselves "modernizing" the story universe in the name of political correctness, or adding/subtracting characters undreamt of by Tolkien in order to "appeal to everyone". Movie Arwen, Tauriel, shield-surfing teen-idol Legolas, "funny", "eccentric' old Radagast- none of that gives hope for anything I'm going to be able to look at without rolling my eyes and switching off.

Thing is, if they just take Tolkien elements and go off to spin their own story, like the Sherlock series, I probably wouldn't mind. It would be separate enough to be "based on" rather than a "true film adaptation" of Tolkien. And then sure, spin whatever you want as long as it's a good story and you admit it's not following the book. The thing that bugs me most is the compensated version, where they feel they have to change something, but not significantly enough to make it its own independent story, so the story ends up being stupid and they frantically vow it's all true Tolkien appendices.

[Inziladun]

I found this wish list of things wanted in the new series. I'm at odds with a good deal of it, but I guess that's just more evidence (as if it were needed) that I'm out of step with the masses.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I found this wish list of things wanted in the new series. I'm at odds with a good deal of it, but I guess that's just more evidence (as if it were needed) that I'm out of step with the masses.

Okay, how about we establish an ongoing Non-wish Wish List of things we would find abhorrent in a Middle-earth presentation, but which may well end up being in the show in some form or another (and whether we like it or not). I'll start:

1. Doggone it, Dwarves are going to have sex whether they want it or not!

2. Elves are actually corrupted Orcs (we got it back side round all this time).

3. Boromir is the love child of Finduilas and Aragorn (in his guise as Thorongil while he fought for Gondor under the steward Echtelion II). Because the new show needs a Jon Snow moment.

4. A story line that involves the sham marriage of Galadriel and Celeborn, due to Celeborn's flagrant proclivities with young male Elves. Title the episode "A Faery Story".

5. Sauron is a bloated, narcissistic red-haired huckster who likes to raise tall buildings with his name on them and uses adverbs like "bigly".

[Michael Murry]

Many thanks to Inziladun and Morthoron for the respective Wish- and Non-Wish lists of prospective "LOTR" television/movie ideas. I don't know which to fear the most. Probably the former, because its proposals seem so lame, shop-worn, and predictable. To take just two examples from the Wish-list:

#6. The original cast appearing in cameos
"The Return of the King and even The Battle of Five Armies left virtually everyone on the right note."

#5. More female characters.

"With their adaptations, Jackson and company made an effort to give the female characters more to do. For example, it's Arwen who rescues the hobbits in the first movie.”

"In The Desolation of Smaug, the film makers introduced a strong-willed female elf named Tauriel. While this character wasn't in any of the books, she was a welcome addition to an otherwise male dominated tale. Amazon could do something similar, although any original characters would have to be well-written to fit into the middle earth canon. We don't just want a token character.”

Oh, please! The transparent cameo appearances of Elija Wood and Ian Holm as departed ring-bearers Frodo and Bilbo Baggins, respectively (back from the Undying Lands for a long-delayed curtain call?) most certainly did not leave "virtually everyone" on the right note at the end of the Hobbit films, unless one considers a sour note the "right" one.

Furthermore, Arwyn does not "rescue the hobbits in the first movie." She only shoves the elf Glorfindel aside and takes his horse to rescue Frodo from pursuing Black Riders. Details from Wikipedia:

As told in the first volume, The Fellowship of the Ring, Glorfindel was sent by Elrond of Rivendell to help the hobbit Frodo reach Rivendell as he is pursued by the Nazgûl. He set Frodo on his horse, Asfaloth, and Frodo rode ahead to the other side of the Ford of Bruinen, where he defied his pursuers. He was nearly captured, but Glorfindel, Strider and Frodo's hobbit companions drove the Nazgûl into the water, where they were swept away by a wave of water resembling charging horses (an enchantment created by Elrond and Gandalf). Glorfindel revealed himself as a mighty Elf-lord terrible in his wrath; Frodo saw him as a shining figure.

So much for Frodo, Asfaloth the horse, Glorfindel, Strider, Frodo's hobbit companions, Elrond and Gandalf getting their own recognition for courage and ingenuity when truly needed. PJ and Co. just had to give Arwyn something to do, since Tolkien could never find much need of her presence throughout the principal narrative of his long tale.

And as for the "strong willed" Elf-chick security guard Tauriel who deserted her King's defense in order to chase after a dwarf with "nothing" in his pants: if she constitutes a "well-written" and "welcome" addition to the Middle Earth canon -- and not "just a token character" pandering to the pre- and post-pubescent mall-maiden demographic -- then the English language, as I understand it, has dissolved into incoherent gibberish.

So much for only two items on the so-called "wish list." I don't have time to go into the other eight, but no doubt others can easily dispense with those.

As for the "No-wish" list, I think it has possibilities, something along the lines of what Young Frankenstein and Love at First Bite did for Mary Shelley's Frankenstein; or, the New Prometheus, and Bram Stoker's Dracula, respectively. J. R. R. Tolkien already did his thing. Nothing can change that. Peter Jackson has lready done his thing. Nothing can change that, either. Time for someone else to do other things with Middle Earth history. I really don't care what as long as it makes sense and they do it with style and a little panache. Not that I expect this, of course, but as the stand-up comedienne Judy Tanuda likes to say about the highly improbable: "It could happen!"

[William Cloud Hicklin]

What I still can't get my head around is the Tolkien family (less Christopher) selling out like this, letting their birthright be turned to crap for a mess of 200 million pottages. Certainly Adam's interviews from a few years ago suggested an attitude like his father's.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

What I still can't get my head around is the Tolkien family (less Christopher) selling out like this, letting their birthright be turned to crap for a mess of 200 million pottages.

Who knows what's going on in the family? Maybe there's drama unknown to the public.
That said, I can sympathize with Turgon after he heard reports Húrin had been released from Angband with honour.

'Even Húrin Thalion has surrendered to the will of Morgoth. My heart is shut'.

[Nerwen]

Any word on the title? I think it should be called A Game of Rings. With any luck, fans of obscure sports will starting watching it under the impression that it's a documentary on quoits, and thus be drawn into the exciting world of "previously unexplored stories based on J.R.R. Tolkien’s original writings". Or not.

[Zigûr]

In all seriousness, I daresay it will be called "The Lord of the Rings: <Insert Subtitle Here>" to get as many people as possible to watch it.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

In all seriousness, I daresay it will be called "The Lord of the Rings: <Insert Subtitle Here>" to get as many people as possible to watch it.

If Truth In Advertising was a law, it'd be called Lord of the Rings: Quest for the Silver Pennies.

[Michael Murry]

Not "Lord" of the "Rings" (as in "onion"), but "Lard" of the "Fries" (as in "French"). Anything to convey the image of congealed grease at the bottom of the pan after deep frying left-over vegetables.

[Michael Murry]

If I may, I'd like to take off on Item #3 of Morthoron's "No-Wish" list for the forthcoming LOTR television series and possible spin-offs:

Boromir is the love child of Finduilas and Aragorn (in his guise as Thorongil while he fought for Gondor under the steward Echtelion II). Because the new show needs a Jon Snow moment.

Confessing my own age, ignorance, and indifference to what passes for "culture" in the "English speaking world" today, I had no idea what a "Jon Snow" moment might mean, so I did a little Internet research and discovered [source: Wikipedia] that "Jon is introduced in 1996's A Game of Thrones as the illegitimate son of Ned Stark, the honorable lord of Winterfell, an ancient fortress in the North of the fictional continent of Westeros." Since I haven't read the Song of Ice and Fire series of fantasy novels by George R. R. Martin, nor have I seen a single episode of its television adaptation Game of Thrones, I immediately thought of Mordred, the illegitimate son of King Arthur and Morgan Le Fay in T. H. White's novel The Once and Future King (based on Thomas Mallory's Le Morte d'Arthur), and subsequently adapted into the musical production and motion picture Camelot, among many other interpretations of the Arthurian legend.

Apropos of the typical "prequel" conundrum, where the audience already knows that the hero will survive every dire predicament and eventually (1) become King, (2) get the girl, and (3) live happily until he decides to depart Middle Earth when he gets damn good and ready, the proposed "LOTR" television series and spin-offs may have to take a page (or several pages) from Star Trek, The Once and Future King, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, about which Wikipedia says:

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a 2008 American romantic fantasy drama film directed by David Fincher. The storyline by Eric Roth and Robin Swicord is loosely based on the 1922 short story of the same name by F. Scott Fitzgerald. The film stars Brad Pitt as a man who ages in reverse and Cate Blanchett as the love interest throughout his life.

As most sentient carbon-based life forms on Planet Earth know by now, in the most recent reboot of the half-century-old Star Trek television-and-movie franchise, Mr Spock comes back from the future through a black hole and thus disrupts the time continuum, altering the fates of the U. S. S. Enterprise crew who then get to live different lives than those they already lived in previous films and television programs. In The Once and Future King, the "wizard" Merlyn lives through time backwards, as does Benjamin Button. The Actress Cate Blanchette, of course, played the Ultimate Elf-female, Galadriel, in the Peter Jackon LOTR and Hobbit films. Not to put too fine a point on the possibilities here: with the whole gang of "wizards" -- i.e., "Istari" -- coming back from the future (or somewhere "in the West") through a black hole in the universe, every character and situation conceived by J. R. R. Tolkien can now undergo an "evolution" towards an unknown and ever-expanding "future." Prequel problem solved. Thank you T. H. White, David Fincher, and J. J. Abrams.

In the new, alternate timeline, not only will Aragorn get it on with Finduilas (producing the illegitimate Boromir) while her much-older husband Denethor sits drooling up in his tower in front of his Palantir, but Gimli the Dwarf and Galadriel will manage to cuckold both Celeborn and Legolas at the same time. I think I begin to see how this will work ...

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The key thing about the "Jon Snow moment" is that it's sort of a Turin/Oedipus/Kullervo moment. You see, Jon's alleged father and everyone else has been lying, or duped, about his parentage since his birth*, and only a handful of people know who his parents really were (not including his girlfriend...)


*Jon's mother died in childbirth and her brother claimed the baby boy as his own bastard got on some wench, to spare her memory the taint of immorality. **

**And to protect the kid's life, since given who the real father was there were lots of people who would consider infanticide an option.

[Michael Murry]

**And to protect the kid's life, since given who the real father was there were lots of people who would consider infanticide an option."

Do you mean, like Elrond taking in Aragorn and adopting him as a foster son after the two-year-old baby's father, Arathorn II, met a violent death; naming the kid "Estel" to conceal his identity because of all the people who would want to kill him if they knew his true lineage? That G. R. R. Martin sure does know how to write "original" fantasy. But thanks for explaining the "Jon Snow moment." Now I know whatever it means to know something like that.

Still, I prefer Mordred as the quintessential bastard son of an English king cuckolded by his favorite knight. I loved that line of his from Camelot: "It's not the earth the meek inherit, it's the dirt." Can't beat that for pithy dialog.

[Michael Murry]

Hey! That title-line I thought up a few postings ago gives me an idea for some vericose versification. Like:

Fast-Food Fulminations on televised Fan Fiction

Not Lord of the "Rings" (as in “onion”)
But Lard of the "Fries" (as in “French”),
Where the grease on the tongue counts as “flavor”
If the nose can put up with the stench.

Once again the “Istari,” or, “wizards”
Will return just in time for the feast,
Being “sent back” by "someone" to “fix things”
Just when everyone thought them deceased.

Their appearance, though, causes some problems,
For a Cause must precede its Effect.
So if Future comes back to the Present
Doesn't that leave the both of them wrecked?

Anyway, getting back to the re-make,
Or the re-boot of Middle Earth time,
Nothing has to make sense on the TV;
Not for any known reason or rhyme.

Like some boys left alone on an island
After all the adults disappear
Would they think up refined entertainment
Or descend to cheap killing and fear?

Stick around for this week's exploitation:
Every shop-worn cliché in the book
Which our next episodes will continue,
Feeding you both the worm and the hook.

Michael Murry, "The Misfortune Teller," Copyright 2017

That will have to do for the present -- just in time before The Vikings, Season Five resumes tomorrow night, November 29 at 9:00 pm on The History Channel.

[Huinesoron]

While I agree that the most likely subject will be Young Aragorn (aka The Strider), I don't think it's quite a foregone conclusion. Pitchwife has already mentioned Westerness, though I think the level of Silm/UT involvement would be pushing it for now. But there is another story of Middle-earth - one filled with romance, catastrophe, known characters, grand battles (which The Strider would or should lack), and even a handful of hobbits. And best of all, it can be found - say it with me - entirely in the Appendices.

I'm talking, of course, about the Fall of Arthedain and the end of the Line of Kings in Gondor. It's one of the more detailed stories in the Appendices, and has the authentic Middle-earth 'feel' without being tied too strongly to the War of the Ring. It stars the Witch-King as primary antagonist, allows the creators to build entirely original societies (neither Angmar nor Arthedain are really 'shown' anywhere), but still has room for everything up to and including appearances by Legolas, Gandalf, Elrond, a hobbit named Baggins (at the fall of Fornost), and even Gollum (somehow!).

Back when The Hobbit movies were just out, I conjured up a breakdown of how Middle-earth: The Fall of Kings could work as a movie trilogy, and as a series it's arguably better: you don't have to find semi-arbitrary break-points in the plot (and in particular, you don't have to compress the entire war with Angmar into Film #2). I can't seem to find a Barrow-Downs policy on links, so if this isn't acceptable let me know and I'll remove and summarise it, but this is my original Livejournal post on the topic:

Middle-earth: The Fall of Kings - Line of Elendil, Last King of Arnor, & Throne of Gondor

Whatever the series is, I kind of hope it goes well - it would be nice to visit Middle-earth again, even if it is a(nother) modified version. But... yeah, I'm not overly hopeful.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Michael Murry

Do you mean, like Elrond taking in Aragorn and adopting him as a foster son after the two-year-old baby's father, Arathorn II, met a violent death; naming the kid "Estel" to conceal his identity because of all the people who would want to kill him if they knew his true lineage? That G. R. R. Martin sure does know how to write "original" fantasy. But thanks for explaining the "Jon Snow moment." Now I know whatever it means to know something like that.

That only works if Elrond lied to Aragorn and everyone else about his parentage, and saddled him with the undeserved taint of bastardy ("Yeah, I knocked up some tavern trollop in Bree."). Oh, and then "Estel" hooked up with a girl way, way more closely related to him than Arwen (unwittingly, of course).

And if Tolkien had kept the reveal of all these facts from the reader until somewhere in Book VI; Strider the Bastard fights his way down to Gondor having no idea he has any claim to the throne.


----------------

"You'll never find a virtue un-statusing my quo,
Or making my Beelzebubble burst.
You can take the high road, and I'll take the low;
I cannot wait to rush in where angels fear to go."

--Mordred

(Never be another lyricist like Fritz Loew).

[Michael Murry]

Thanks again, Mr Hicklin, for helping me to better understand the "Jon Snow" thing. Since I'll never read the books or sit through even ten minutes of the television series, I have to depend upon others to fill me in on the plot, characterizations, etc. Given the popularity of this kind of standard television fantasy, the forthcoming "Lord of the Rings" version will have much low-lying pasture to plow, so to speak. I have to wonder what the relatively tame and tepid Tolkien mythology has to offer today's consumer of commercialized, hack-and-slash, comic-book "entertainment."

The "royal bastard" theme has certainly gone though any number of permutations over the centuries. For example: In the current Vikings (now in its fifth season on The History Channel) the future Anglo-Saxon King Alfred the Great of Wessex (i.e., England) owes his paternal DNA not to his mother's official husband, Prince (now King) Aethelwulf, but to Athelstan, a Christian priest captured and then sort-of adopted by the Viking leader Ragnar Lothbrok who drags him back and forth between Norway and England as a sort of personal confidante/interpreter/geographer. Somewhere along the line, Athestan becomes more pagan than Christian (before reversing the process later) and has sex with (thereby impregnating) Princess Judith, enraging her husband, Prince Aethlewulf, but only firing the desires of Aethlewulf's father, King Eckbert, who then takes his own son's wife (and Alfred's mother) for a mistress. How shocking! Royal personages and priests behaving badly! Shame on them.

As for Camelot, I think -- according to Wikipedia -- that Alan Jay Lerner did the book and lyrics while Frederick Loewe did the music. I never could get straight which of those two did what. I just loved the music and lyrics. I read The Once and Future King decades ago and really should go back and read it again. I especially appreciated the concept of Merlyn the magician living backwards through time. Something about that always reminded me of Arthur C. Clark's Law: namely, that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." All those fireworks that Gandalf kept detonating for show may have amazed the hobbits and other denizens of Middle Earth but only because they had not yet ventured far enough "to the East" to meet the Chinese who invented gunpowder but didn't realize its full implications. Tolkien certainly got a first hand glimpse of that explosive technological magic in the trenches of The Great War of 1914-1918. It does not seem to me that Gandalf really understood what he had let loose in the "Western" world with his little "magic" firecracker shows and Tolkien, who should have understood this lethal technology better than most, makes nothing of it at all (unless I missed something).

Anyway, getting back to Tolkien's mythology as per the Appendices: in 2933 of the Third Age, Lord Elrond "receives [the two-year-old Aragorn] as a foster son and gives him the name Estel (Hope); his ancestry is concealed." This "foster son" gambit, of course, makes Aragorn the foster brother of Elron's two sons. It also makes Elrond's daughter, Arwyn, Aragorn's older -- 2,690 years older -- foster sister. Logically, this makes any romantic relationship between the two foster siblings a form of "foster incest." Not just that, but in a reversal of the older male robbing the younger female cradle, we have the younger male cradle robbing the older female assisted living facility. Something tells me that young Aragorn may have fallen for an elvish female version of Dorian Gray. But one can only hope ...

[Rhun charioteer]

Originally Posted by Michael Murry

Do you mean, like Elrond taking in Aragorn and adopting him as a foster son after the two-year-old baby's father, Arathorn II, met a violent death; naming the kid "Estel" to conceal his identity because of all the people who would want to kill him if they knew his true lineage? That G. R. R. Martin sure does know how to write "original" fantasy. But thanks for explaining the "Jon Snow moment." Now I know whatever it means to know something like that.

Still, I prefer Mordred as the quintessential bastard son of an English king cuckolded by his favorite knight. I loved that line of his from Camelot: "It's not the earth the meek inherit, it's the dirt." Can't beat that for pithy dialog.

Jon Snow is somewhat like Aragorn in that is real father was the crown prince(hence being the true king) you see who ran off with Eddard Stark's sister, this created a chain of events that resulted in Jon'a real father dying in a rebellion at the hands of Ned Stark's sisters betrothed who by the way passionately hated the family of the crown prince whom he believed stole away and raped his betrothed. Hence Eddard Stark lying about Jon's actual parentage and defaming his own honor and reputation because said betrothed hated the family of crown prince even though Eddard Stark and his sister's betrothed were close friends who were fostered together. Despite this Eddard's sister's betrothed hated that family and would have had no compunctions about killing the child if he knew who the real father was hence Eddard claiming the boy as his own bastard son.

It's hinted in the books and basically confirmed in the TV show Jon is the rightful king and the "Azor Ahai" a sort of prophesied savior figure at the same time.

It's very convoluted but still follows fantasy tropes in the end whether Martin admits it or not.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

As for Camelot, I think -- according to Wikipedia -- that Alan Jay Lerner did the book and lyrics while Frederick Loewe did the music.

Quite right, my bad. Loewe however was a brilliant composer, especially in stylistic pastiche to fit the setting.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Michael Murry

Thanks again, Mr Hicklin, for helping me to better understand the "Jon Snow" thing. Since I'll never read the books or sit through even ten minutes of the television series, I have to depend upon others to fill me in on the plot, characterizations, etc. Given the popularity of this kind of standard television fantasy...

Game of Thrones (and the Martin books) are much better than that. Tolkien they're not, but then Martin didn't set out to write a Tolkien-esque world anyway. It's much more about sh!tty human behavior, political intrigue, treachery, backstabbing, assassination, dictatorship, religious fanaticism, human sacrifice, the awfuller aspects of war with attendant pillage, rape, massacre, refugees and suffering, and suffused by grey-and-black morality; he has said (quite truthfully) that his inspiration was as much the Wars of the Roses as Tolkien. Imagine a setting where even the Good Guys are a bunch of Denethors and Wormtongues, or at their very best, Boromirs.*

Vikings is, by comparison, a soap opera with battleaxes.

-------------------

*Literally, since Goodest Guy Ned Stark was played by Sean Bean.

[Andsigil]

I'm deathly afraid that this Amazon series will contain every banal, contrived, idiotic trope of political correctness that anyone in Hollywood can think of, and that it will dash my hopes for this series upon the rocks of Thangorodrim.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

"Estel's" identity wasn't that much of a secret; at best it was classified Confidential since it was known to all of Elrond's household, all the Dunedain, Gandalf, Galadriel, Celeborn, Haldir and even Bilbo. The Dunedain, after all, knew good and well who their hereditary chieftain was and who he was descended from.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by WCH

Game of Thrones (and the Martin books) are much better than that.

...Whilst still being possibly the single most over-hyped and over-rated series I can think of, off the top of my head.

As for "Lord of the Rings: The Early Years", I am very confident now that it is going to suck like the deepest, vilest slime-pool in all the Dead Marshes. For some reason I'm quite looking forward to it.

[Michael Murry]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

"Estel's" identity wasn't that much of a secret; at best it was classified Confidential since it was known to all of Elrond's household, all the Dunedain, Gandalf, Galadriel, Celeborn, Haldir and even Bilbo. The Dunedain, after all, knew good and well who their hereditary chieftain was and who he was descended from.

I don't own DVD copies of the three Peter Jackson "Hobbit" movies, so I have to depend on youtube to look up various scenes to refresh my memory on the occasions when I want to comment on something related to these of awful film experiences. In terms of this discussion thread, I took a particular interest in the obvious sequel-set-up scenes near the end of The Batttle of the Five Armies when the "young Elf lord" Legolas takes leave of his father, King Thranduil without a clue as to where he wanted to go and what he might possibly do. In a typical Hollywood "western," the hero cowboy would simply mount up and slowly ride off on his horse into the setting sun. For "royal" elves like Prince Legolas in a Peter Jackson movie, this would involve riding away "into the West" on an enormous CGI moose with antlers spanning twenty-five feet, at least. But I digress ...

I went over all this "Legolas leaving" stuff in comment #74 above so I don't want to repeat all that here. I only wanted to figure out where the next movies might go on the basis of where "the narrative" left off at the end of The Hobbit in 2942 when Bilbo returns to the Shire with his little magic ring. Specifically, I wondered why King Thranduil didn't tell his son, Legolas: "Just head on over to Imladris (i.e., Rivendell) and check out this ten-year-old boy Aragorn, the true heir to the throne of Gondor." Why bother with all the "Confidential" name-concealing stuff if everyone in Imladris -- except Aragorn himself -- knew the real story? And what would Legolas do in Imladris for another decade while waiting for Aragorn to grow up, turn twenty (in 2951), learn his true name, meet his older foster-sister Arwyn, and go out into the wild where he would meet and become friends with Gandalf five years later in 2956? Why does King Thanduil play these stupid "figure it out for yourself" mind games on his own son when he could just let him in on what so many other people already know even when Aragorn himself doesn't? I just don't see how this works.

At any rate, Tolkien didn't mention Legolas until the Council of Elrond (in October of 3018) where Elrond reveals Aragorn's true identity to the assembled guests, Legolas included. According to Tolkien, King Thranduil had sent his son Legolas to Rivendell to tell Lord Elrond and other important persons that Gollum had escaped from the wood-elves' rather lax supervision. As Appendix B tells us, Aragorn had captured Gollum and turned him over to the elves and Gandalf for interrogation the previous year (3017) so one would presume that King Thranduil's son Legolas had at least met Aragorn back home in Mirkwood at the time of this turnover. So why did King Thranduil send his son Legolas on a wild goose chase for decades when he could have told him: "Just stay here with us in Mirkwood and this 'Strider' character will come visit us in another seventy-five years (3017) bearing a disgusting little creature for us to keep prisoner for him and his wizard buddy Gandalf? Then, when we lose the foul wretch like we lost the hobbit Bilbo and some dwarves earlier this year (2942), you can take a message to Rivendell the following year (in 3018) and find out this guy Strider's true name along with everyone else. So why not just save yourself a lot of needless wandering around to no purpose?."

Something tells me that this Legolas character has a lot of wandering around lost to do in these forthcoming movies -- at least, "based on" the information Tolkien provided in Appendix B of Lord of the Rings. Bilbo's poem might even require some modification:

Pyrite, or "fool's gold" does glitter.
Some wanderers truly are lost.
Bad movies make viewers feel bitter
When they think how much tickets now cost.

From the ashes some soot shall be scattered
On the living room floor made of clay.
For the rich only one lesson mattered:
The penniless once more shall pay.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

As for "Lord of the Rings: The Early Years", I am very confident now that it is going to suck like the deepest, vilest slime-pool in all the Dead Marshes. For some reason I'm quite looking forward to it.

Putting a Game of Thrones lusty spin on things, just think of the pedophilic delight of a several hundred year-old Arwen getting the hots for barely-pubescent Aragorn. Dirty ol' Elvesses! Not to mention the menage-a-thirty between the orcs and Celebrian (with the Aredhel-like insinuation that "it is not said that she was wholly unwilling"). Face it, Elrond got pretty dull after a few millenia. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

Why are you glaring at me like that?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Well, they'll have to augment Tolkien's rather limited cast of female characters just to get to requisite number of boobies onscreen

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Well, they'll have to augment Tolkien's rather limited cast of female characters just to get to requisite number of boobies onscreen

I'm pretty sure it is a foregone conclusion that they are going to do that anyway.

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I'm pretty sure it is a foregone conclusion that they are going to do that anyway.

Which... isn't a bad thing?

I mean, except the titillation part. But if a 'suggested by The Lord of the Rings' TV show has to exist, then one that used only characters and events from the books (outside the actual timeline of the War of the Rings) is going to be very shallow and empty. Middle-earth is an amazingly rich tapestry of geography, history, and cultures, but Tolkien only sketched in a few actual people outside specific times.

So more people will absolutely have to be added in, and honestly I'd rather they be 'new' than the alternative of shoehorning everyone into spaces that are already there. If the story is Young Aragorn, do we really want every character in Gondor to be Baby Ioreth, Baranor Father of Beregond, the rangers Mablungsdad, Damrodsdad, and Anbornsdad...?

If they're going to do this, then I would much rather see genuinely new characters reflecting the diversity and lack thereof of Gondor, Rohan, Bree and so forth, than having them succumb to Star Wars disease (which has recently provided a story about the Stormtrooper who stunned Princess Leia at the start of the first film - he was of course a conflicted person with a rich inner life).

Obvious caveat: it would be nice if the new characters were from Middle-earth, rather than the Westeros refugees we're probably in line for...

[William Cloud Hicklin]

then one that used only characters and events from the books (outside the actual timeline of the War of the Rings) is going to be very shallow and empty.

I got news for you: It's gonna be shallow and empty no matter what.

[Morthoron]

Lord of the Schwing.

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

I got news for you: It's gonna be shallow and empty no matter what.

And filled to the brim with PC tropes to the point that it's hardly recognizable as a Tolkien work.

[skip spence]

Wow, how did this happen? I'm genuinely shocked the estate sold them the rights. Then again I'm not. Christoffer is old and the younger generation would be hard put to decline a (I'm sure) very significant offer.

There was a time not that long ago this would excite me somewhat, at least instill a little vain hope that the series perhaps would be good after all. Not so now. There's really no chance of that. Not for Tolkienistas like us.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by skip spence

There was a time not that long ago this would excite me somewhat, at least instill a little vain hope that the series perhaps would be good after all. Not so now. There's really no chance of that. Not for Tolkienistas like us.

Sadly, you're right.

Tolkien himself said way back in 1955 that he thought LOTR was "unsuitable for 'dramatisation'". He was quite correct. The language, story, and characterizations are sublime and distinctive enough to make an accurate adaptation, as least as far as the ephemeral qualities, impossible. Another GoT clone with swords, sorcery, violence, and maybe as much skin as they can get away with. Why do an adaptation of someone else's work if you're just going to undo it?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Sadly, you're right.

Tolkien himself said way back in 1955 that he thought LOTR was "unsuitable for 'dramatisation'". He was quite correct. The language, story, and characterizations are sublime and distinctive enough to make an accurate adaptation, as least as far as the ephemeral qualities, impossible. Another GoT clone with swords, sorcery, violence, and maybe as much skin as they can get away with. Why do an adaptation of someone else's work if you're just going to undo it?

Why remake classic films or TV shows at all? Why disembogue ubiquitous sequels ad nauseam (Rocky, Die Hard, Halloween, Fast and Furious, Star Wars, Godzillas, King Kongs, et al)? Did we need two Hulk remakes within a five year period? Which number re-adaptation of Superman, Batman and Spiderman are we on? I've lost count.

There was a period when remakes were more sporadic but better done, usually replacing a silent film that movie viewers would no longer watch (Robin Hood, Ben Hur and The Hunchback of Notre Dame come to mind), but now there seems to be a decided dearth of original ideas reaching the screen, or at least the proliferation of remakes and sequels seems to have saturated the market. Often, it seems genuinely surprising when someone offers a film of genuine depth and originality, and not just a reiteration of a well-worn theme.

Hell, they continue to reuse the "Wilhelm scream" (372 movies and counting). What, you can't come up with one on your own?

[Galin]

Maybe Hulk appear in new show Ring Lord?

Never know.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Galin

Maybe Hulk appear in new show Ring Lord?

Never know.

...Green is his skin,
And his pants are yellow.

[Galin]

Pants no help Hulk ratings!

yet yellow pants available in Yunkai plaza (go Amazon river, take left)... lo lo price... buy now or Hulk smash!