Amazon (and Netflix) Pursue a 'Lord of The Rings' TV Series (theverge.com)

And nobody will watch it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 14:45 · Score: 0, Interesting

No wonder bezos it's selling billions of dollars of stock.

Re:And nobody will watch it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 16:40 · Score: 0

Some versions of the LOTR were pretty dire. A lot of that comes from the fact that the editors and printers took enormous liberties with the manuscript they were provided which made it an incredibly tedious read.
However, if you get your hands on a more recent edition where the various typos and misprints have been fixed, the book becomes a joy to read.
Not to suggest that it's your cup of tea, but if you're only exposure was one of the older copies, I completely understand why you'd think that way. They were terrible. But, the 50th anniversary edition is a much, much easier read and I had a hard time putting it down when I was reading it.
Re:And nobody will watch it by gl4ss · 2017-11-05 19:39 · Score: 1

well.. back in the day.. early '90s, it was basically the only book series with dragons, dwarves and elves in the library and it's pretty okay.
otherwise whats the point? well maybe do the story as it is in the books? I mean jackson just shat all over the growth story of the hobbits in the ending of his movie.
it's been done already? that doesn't bother everybody. do you know that in Thailand they remake frigging soap operas. with exact same plot. sometimes with same actors.'
besides than that a lot of the the monsters and stuff in d&d was just lifted from there - and if you wanted to find some cool dragon paintings in a book, getting lotr illustrations was the way to go in early '90s.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:And nobody will watch it by careysub · 2017-11-05 19:56 · Score: 3, Funny

I find it to be pretty awful, really. Tolkien just prattles on and on and on and on about a bunch of hyperbolic shit. Every location and creature is described in extreme detail only to be outdone by the next that's more fantastical, more evil, more ancient, a taller mountain inside a deeper pit, etc.. And here's a fucking song for no reason. And Hobbit food? It's like the scene in Forest Gump describing different types of shrimp, but it's not funny, nor is it interesting. It's just filler.
Some nerds call this shit "world building". I call it Tolkien loving the smell of his own farts.
As I type this the above post is rated "Troll". That seems remarkably appropriate.

--
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Re:And nobody will watch it by aevan · 2017-11-05 22:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

*blink* but D&D novels were in libraries in 80s. I know my high school library and local public libraries carried them, alongside Eddings, Prachett, and so on. Maybe in the 50s it was the case, but high fantasy novels were rather prevalent from early 80s onwards (at least that I saw).

You are entirely right on D&D lifting from Tolkein (and other places)...their halflings were just (legally forced/threatened) renames of hobbits IIRC. And there are definitely people who love remakes...just ask the market for "Sports Game! {current year}". Or "This interpretation of classical pierce by so-and-so, as preformed by this-orchestra". To each their own.
Re:And nobody will watch it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 22:45 · Score: 0

SILENCE! Works of fantasy did not exist until the early 90s. Televised comedy was completely unknown until Perfect Strangers first aired.
Re:And nobody will watch it by Oswald+McWeany · 2017-11-05 23:56 · Score: 3, Informative

I find it to be pretty awful, really. Tolkien just prattles on and on and on and on about a bunch of hyperbolic shit. Every location and creature is described in extreme detail only to be outdone by the next that's more fantastical, more evil, more ancient, a taller mountain inside a deeper pit, etc.. And here's a fucking song for no reason. And Hobbit food? It's like the scene in Forest Gump describing different types of shrimp, but it's not funny, nor is it interesting. It's just filler.
Some nerds call this shit "world building". I call it Tolkien loving the smell of his own farts.
It's not that Tolkien is a particularly interesting or gifted writer for the average reader that makes him such a draw. (let's face it, he's actually a little boring- although, I know millions will disagree with me). What makes Tolkien amazing and his works a landmark piece is that he pretty much created a very rich and dramatic genre and alternate universe all by himself. Sure, he took a lot from mythology, but he created a very vivid world different from others before him. Almost every fantasy author who has come along after Tolkien has stolen a little bit of Tolkien (or a lot of Tolkien) in creating their worlds. Most fantasy worlds ARE a rip-off of Tolkien in one way or another.
Tolkien's strength is not in his wordsmanship, it's in his creativity.

--
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Re:And nobody will watch it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 00:42 · Score: 0

The 90s? There were a plethora of fantasy books around in the 90s. What shitty library did you use?
Re:And nobody will watch it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 01:52 · Score: 0

I don't know, I'm tired of this lame cynicism that everything ever must suck. I'll give it a watch. It's possible that with the right team and direction, they'll manage some engrossing stories in the LOTR world. Consider how much material there is in Silmarillion and other apocrypha.
Re:And nobody will watch it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 02:37 · Score: 0

Huh. Tolkien's one of the more gifted writers most people will ever read. His wordsmanship is stunning; he understands the language better than anyone else. I've yet to see better in the genre.
Re:And nobody will watch it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 03:27 · Score: 1, Interesting

Tolkien's often dry and long winded as fuck. There are far better authors; I'll certainly agree with you there.
The world building, though? No. Fatty McHBOchecks ain't got shit on Tolkien. Dude not only invented workable languages, but went through the process of "modernizing" them over the imaginary centuries. You know why half of LotR is boring as fuck? Because it's references to shit that has nothing to do with anything in the books, but reflects how real people work.
Some alien dude wouldn't know what the fuck 'the whole nine yards' or 'three sheets to the wind' or 'hot grits' means. We say that shit, because of our history. Tolkien's characters do the same. And it's infuriating and absolutely magnificent.
Re:And nobody will watch it by ctilsie242 · 2017-11-06 03:37 · Score: 1

I would assert the whole fantasy genre came from Tolkien. His writings may not have been as intriguing as other authors, but his universe is often used by others.
There have been two other major fantasy paradigms that have followed after that. The roles of elves, orcs, etc. changing due to Warhammer and World of Warcraft (which is heavily influenced by that style.) Then, the butchery style of George R. R. Martin where before that, the named characters would survive, perhaps with one being the sacrifice to be remembered. GoT brought on the paradigm of anyone being able to be killed, anywhere.
Things are changing though. The classic Tolkien fantasy is boring, and in general, we are seeing a move to less magical, but more gritty, combat oriented universes, like GoT, or even Gor.
Re:And nobody will watch it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 04:29 · Score: 0

In other news, sexconker reveals that he's a semiliterate pratt.
Re:And nobody will watch it by nasch · 2017-11-06 04:52 · Score: 1

In case you haven't seen it:
Epic Rap Battles of History, George RR Martin vs JRR Tolkien
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Re:And nobody will watch it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 06:42 · Score: 0

Then you should check out George MacDonald, Tolkien's friend, mentor, and inspiration.
Re:And nobody will watch it by Shirley+Marquez · 2017-11-07 05:23 · Score: 1

There are quite a few characters and sub-plots that have been omitted for all the movies so that they aren't impossibly long. There is probably enough story in LoTR for a couple of season's worth of episodes if you use everything in the books.
That said, I'd rather see Hollywood spend its time and money on telling a story that hasn't already been told multiple times. LoTR was actually done pretty well once by the Peter Jackson movies. (No, they're not perfect and I don't want to open that debate. A TV series might be able to improve on them, but the net utility to the world would still be greater in my opinion if they do something else.)
Re:And nobody will watch it by david_thornley · 2017-11-07 07:57 · Score: 1

There was fantasy before Tolkien. Tolkien just made it popular. Tolkien's fantasy wasn't really much different from other fantasy, but his worldbuilding was great.
The next big change in fantasy was Dungeons and Dragons. Tolkien's wizards knew things, and were capable of unusual things. Dungeons and Dragons made wizards into artillery, firing powerful fireball and lightning bolt spells to kill large numbers of monsters. Gandalf the White would rate maybe sixth level on the D&D power scale, unimpressive for an ancient angel in human form. After D&D, wizards tended to have high damage output.
As far as world-building went, M.A.R. "Phil" Barker and Greg Stafford put out games based on Tekumel and Glorantha respectively in the early days of RPGs, and those were also very finely detailed worlds.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:And nobody will watch it by david_thornley · 2017-11-07 08:02 · Score: 1

You are entirely right on D&D lifting from Tolkein (and other places)...their halflings were just (legally forced/threatened) renames of hobbits IIRC.

As one who bought the original version of D&D (which didn't say "role-playing" anywhere), you're correct. The game had hobbits, ents, and balrogs. TSR had to change those pretty fast when the Tolkien estate caught up with them. (Apparently "orcs" had prior use, so they kept that.) The game itself wasn't particularly like Tolkien's writing, but it borrowed monsters and player races from all sorts of places.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

"... might not encompass all of the characters" by sheramil · 2017-11-05 14:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

So, no Tom Bombadil? Again?

Re:"... might not encompass all of the characters" by Zocalo · 2017-11-05 20:09 · Score: 1

I dunno, seems like an ideal opportunity for a very thinly veiled bit of agenda pushing in support or opposition of the movement to legalise marijuana and other recreational drugs to me; depending on how you write the character you could easily go either way on that - or leave it more ambiguous to try and add to the discussion. A TV series has a lot more room for "extending the canon" (AKA "filler") and using it to provide some form of commentry on real world affairs, so I wouldn't count him out just yet.

--
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Re:"... might not encompass all of the characters" by sheramil · 2017-11-05 20:27 · Score: 1

I dunno, seems like an ideal opportunity for a very thinly veiled bit of agenda pushing in support or opposition of the movement to legalise marijuana and other recreational drugs to me...
You may be thinking of "Tim Benzedrine", from the Harvard Lampoon's "Bored of the Rings", and his wife Hashberry.
Re:"... might not encompass all of the characters" by Freischutz · 2017-11-05 20:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

...There appears to be some strings attached: the rights might not encompass all of the characters in the story. HBO has reportedly passed on the project.
So, no Tom Bombadil? Again?
With the Tolkien estate having caught the greed virus it's probably $250 million just for the rights to the basic story and then a long price list for every one of the main character you want to include, starting with 30 million for Gandalf, another 30 million for Frodo, 20 million for Aragon, 12 million for Legolas and Gimli and 5 million for each of the other company members. The right to show goblin and orc hordes is sold in batches of 10.000 for a million dollars each so if you want a 200.000 man army of orcs and goblins for the battle of the fields of Pelennor it's going to set you back another 20 million. Sauron appearances are sold time wise at a rate of 250.000 dollars per second (that includes showing just the great eye) but we'll throw in Samwise for free, just as a token of good will.

But all sarcasm aside, perhaps Netflix, Hulu and Amazon should clue into the fact that there are other great works of fantasy and science fiction (The Expanse being an example of a really good one that came a bit out of left field for me when I found it in my Netflix recommendations list) and that they might be better off picking one of those rather than trying to flog the decomposing horse carcass that Peter Jackson and his gang turned LOTR and especially the slapstick riddled (three part!!) mess they turned The Hobbit into in the vain hope that the poor dead critter will pull the stone one more circle around the mill. I suppose that with Islamophobia being in vogue it will be a couple of decades before we get a good filming of the Dune trilogy but there is the Earth Sea trilogy, (Dare I say it) Northern Lights, ... I'm sure people here can ad a few dozen names to that list.
Re:"... might not encompass all of the characters" by Scarletdown · 2017-11-05 21:59 · Score: 1

And how long before the property enters the public domain? It has to be getting close.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.
Re:"... might not encompass all of the characters" by darthsilun · 2017-11-05 22:32 · Score: 3, Informative

So, no Tom Bombadil? Again?
Or Ghân-buri-Ghân?
Re:"... might not encompass all of the characters" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 23:23 · Score: 1

Probably not. Copyright will most likely be extended by 20 years every 20 years for the foreseeable future
Re:"... might not encompass all of the characters" by DrXym · 2017-11-05 23:39 · Score: 2

This is Netflix we're talking about. If a story can be told in 8 episodes they'll make 16. And Lord of the Rings is an easy 3 seasons. So they'll make 6. It'll be thin, like butter scraped over too much bread as Bilbo would say.
Tom Bombadil will probably get one all to himself, gaily prancing around the forest and singing for 50 minutes.
Re:"... might not encompass all of the characters" by AmiMoJo · 2017-11-06 00:37 · Score: 1

The problem with Bombadil is that he adds basically nothing to the story, only serving to waste time explaining why this god-like being can't be trusted to look after the One Ring or do anything about the imminent destruction of the world he lives in.
It's not really clear why he is even in the book, except perhaps to emphasise that the heroes really are the only chance to save the world, even if their plan doesn't seem like a very good one. But the whole book is full of stuff like that, e.g. if the eagles could rescue them at the end why couldn't they just fly them there in the first place?

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:"... might not encompass all of the characters" by Chris+Mattern · 2017-11-06 01:24 · Score: 3, Informative

Not really. Copyright keeps getting extended, because Disney will do whatever it takes to prevent Mickey Mouse from going into the public domain. If we take the copyright on The Hobbit (published in 1937) as the benchmark, it doesn't expire until 2032, assuming it doesn't get extended again (which it likely will).
Re:"... might not encompass all of the characters" by Gilgaron · 2017-11-06 01:35 · Score: 1

I'd like to see Amazon take on Gene Wolfe's solar cycle if they're going to blow a wad of cash on a tentpole series. It'd be pretty hard to get right, though.
Re:"... might not encompass all of the characters" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 03:27 · Score: 1

It's not really clear why he is even in the book, except perhaps to emphasise that the heroes really are the only chance to save the world, even if their plan doesn't seem like a very good one. But the whole book is full of stuff like that, e.g. if the eagles could rescue them at the end why couldn't they just fly them there in the first place?
A lot of oddities in LotR makes a lot more sense if you look at it as an allegory for WW1.
Tolkien stated that the dead marshes took some inspiration from the battle of the Somme.
If you look at it as an allegory the reason to why they couldn't ride the eagles in the beginning could be explained with this passage from Wikipedia.

At the outbreak of the war, the United States pursued a policy of non-intervention, avoiding conflict while trying to broker a peace. When the German U-boat U-20 sank the British liner RMS Lusitania on 7 May 1915 with 128 Americans among the dead, President Woodrow Wilson insisted that "America is too proud to fight" but demanded an end to attacks on passenger ships. Germany complied.
Simply put, the eagles were taking a neutral stance at the beginning of LotR and weren't available to the fellowship.
Re:"... might not encompass all of the characters" by ctilsie242 · 2017-11-06 03:40 · Score: 1

Likely never, with the way copyright laws are today.
Re:"... might not encompass all of the characters" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 03:44 · Score: 0

Earth Sea trilogy
That is my favorite fantasy series... ... may it never be "discovered" by Hollywood.
Re:"... might not encompass all of the characters" by DarthVain · 2017-11-06 03:44 · Score: 1

I agree. Plenty of good stuff out there to mine for content. Can't wait for more Expanse.
Having said that... The Shannara Chronicles. :p
I was excited to see that the books had been made into a TV show... less so after I've watched it. I still watch it mind you if only out of stubbornness, that they made the damn thing so I am going to watch it.
Anyway there is so much good stuff out there that has never been done, one can only hope they do it justice however. I have to think with things like Tolkin, it is more about leveraging existing works (i.e. the movies), and branding that has already been done and paid for. Basically unless you live in a cave, you probably are at least aware of the stories.
Another good example is Pillars of the Earth, another great story, which actually was quite well done on TV. Though it was short lived, and as I mentioned probably didn't have the name recognition that some of the bigger names have.
Re:"... might not encompass all of the characters" by cyberchondriac · 2017-11-06 04:17 · Score: 1

I'd be okay with that. That section of the book was particularly laborious for me to read through, I just couldn't get into the singing bits. It seemed gratuitously silly; not to mention rather pointless, because even though the ring has no effect on him, we're never told why.
LoTR is not an easy read anyway.
It'll always be an epic classic though, really have defined much of the modern fantasy genre, like what Jimi Hendrix or Jimmy Page is to classic rock.

--

Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Re:"... might not encompass all of the characters" by tofleplof · 2017-11-06 04:49 · Score: 1

Nope, though we might see some dwarf-tossing again. (sigh)
Re:"... might not encompass all of the characters" by tbannist · 2017-11-06 05:10 · Score: 1

I hate to break this to you, but it already was.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re:"... might not encompass all of the characters" by whyyisthissohard · 2017-11-06 05:49 · Score: 1

The Lord of the Rings is not genre fiction. It's monolithic. Rarely are there fantastical elements put in the story solely for the reader's entertainment. Everything means something, everything has a natural analogue. The genre as you know it was basically artificially spawned to drown out the voice of LotR as a censorship measure. Too many dangerous ideas contained inside.
But hey I guess as long as you're distracted by SWORDS and MAGIC and COOL CRITTERS it's all the same to you. The censorship has worked on most.
>cue liberal arguments about censorship and free speech with narrow 'comfortable' definitions learned in elementary school
Re:"... might not encompass all of the characters" by nasch · 2017-11-06 05:59 · Score: 1

I would be interested in the Eragon series done well. The movie was such a chopped up mess of bits and pieces from all the books if I remember right. They're each like 750 pages or something so plenty of material for a TV series.
Re:"... might not encompass all of the characters" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 05:59 · Score: 0

http://oglaf.com/ornithology
Re:"... might not encompass all of the characters" by chuckugly · 2017-11-06 07:02 · Score: 1

This is precisely why there is no longer any significant moral high ground on either side of the IP vs piracy discussion. Plenty of high ground in the middle, where it doesn't matter though.
Re:"... might not encompass all of the characters" by chuckugly · 2017-11-06 07:03 · Score: 1

Mickey Mouse will not go into the PD, as there is no time limit of trademarks. Steamboat Willie should however be in the public domain a long time ago. Anything made prior to the 21st century should probably be in the public domain in fact.
Re:"... might not encompass all of the characters" by Altrag · 2017-11-06 07:39 · Score: 1

I still don't get this. The character should be protected by trademark law which is valid until you stop using/enforcing it. I don't know why they (well, Disney specifically) feels the need to keep calling Mickey Mouse a copyright and screwing with copyright law. Steamboat Willy isn't exactly a big seller at this point and almost certainly never will be again. There must be something else they're trying to protect than just the image of their characters (that could be protected in other ways) or absurdly old animated shorts (that barely matter if at all.)
Re:"... might not encompass all of the characters" by Chris+Mattern · 2017-11-06 07:53 · Score: 1

Because trademark is limited. A trademark covers only its use in advertising for a "trade" of the entity using it. If Mickey Mouse was only a trademark, other people who are in a line of business that Disney doesn't do could use it. People who aren't using it for advertising could use it. Disney doesn't feel they can tolerate that. They have the trademark, sure, but it's not enough. They feel they need a copyright.
Re:"... might not encompass all of the characters" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 07:53 · Score: 0

... but we'll throw in Samwise for free, just as a tolkien of good will.
FTFY.
Re:"... might not encompass all of the characters" by Altrag · 2017-11-06 07:55 · Score: 1

There's a lot of good books out there that could be potentially translated into stellar TV shows. The only reason to pick Lord of the Rings is brand recognition. Personally I think its a horrible choice given how recently the movies were made and the fact that they were.. decent but hardly great. The LoTR story is just too simple and straightforward by today's standards. And that's no knock against it -- it was the starting point for much of today's standards -- but there's been pushing 100 years of development since then in terms of storytelling and in terms of public experience with and expectations of fantasy settings.
I'd personally like to see Wheel of Time done well. I know its been attempted a once or twice but its always been low budget with poor production and barely gets any notice. I know a lot of fantasy-lovers dislike WoT due to.. reasons (writing style? The fact that what was intended to be a trilogy got stretched into 12 books and a lot of filler injected to make that happen? Other reasons?) But all that could potentially be cleaned up when adapting for TV -- cut the filler and focus on the main story.. much of the writing style is naturally cleaned up because you've got real scenery instead of having to just describe it and so on.)
Shannara is also a good series, though its kind of more in the LoTR vein where its fairly straightforward plot-wise. Its not until right near the very end that anyone really questions their choices or their quest for example -- the rest of it is (mostly) just beating the path toward the goal. That doesn't make it a bad series by any means, but it does mean its less viable as a (saleable) TV product if you're looking for a mass market audience.
Of course, having lots of potential for nude scenes helps too. Though as early GoT seasons showed, Hollywood isn't exactly adverse to making up scenes for the sole purpose of throwing around some boobies if they feel there isn't enough already.
Re:"... might not encompass all of the characters" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 08:56 · Score: 0

Is it tolkien estate or Zaentz estate? Tolkien estate got almost nothing for LOTR movie - rights sold a long time ago
Re:"... might not encompass all of the characters" by Zumbs · 2017-11-06 09:28 · Score: 1

This is Netflix we're talking about. If a story can be told in 8 episodes they'll make 16.
No, it is Amazon ;-)

--
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
Re:"... might not encompass all of the characters" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 11:34 · Score: 0

what about tombombadildo... and his 20 inch pianist.
Re:"... might not encompass all of the characters" by maelkum · 2017-11-06 21:32 · Score: 1

But all sarcasm aside, perhaps Netflix, Hulu and Amazon should clue into the fact that there are other great works of fantasy and science fiction (...).
This, so much this! It would be great if, for example, The Chronicles of The Black Company by Glen Cook were made into a series. Or The Demon Cycle by Peter Brett.
Re:"... might not encompass all of the characters" by Scarletdown · 2017-11-07 04:43 · Score: 1

I figured it was the ignorant masses who do not understand the differences between different imaginary properties who keep mislabeling it copyright. Disney and the other huge organizations just don't see a need to correct the public on that and probably find it beneficial to just let everyone get it wrong.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.
Re:"... might not encompass all of the characters" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 02:33 · Score: 0

Mickey Mouse is a convenient (fictional) talking point. The real deal is that Disney is able to see ahead a few decades to when their moneymaker, Snow White, which came out in 1934 will go out of copyright. That will be in 2036. So expect Disney to try to get copyright extended again before 2036. They know if they wait until 2034 to do this that the PR will bury them. So now they just point at the great grandchildren of some early twentieth century author and cry "Think of the children! Why should they live in poverty when 'The Art of buggy whip manufacturing' is still used in MBA programs throughout the nation. It's just not fair."
No this isn't about Mickey Mouse this is about Disney never wanting to let go of their 600 plus major motion pictures, which they intend to milk until the universe dies.
Re:"... might not encompass all of the characters" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-09 03:12 · Score: 0

Bombadil is there because he's a symbol of the wider world that exists beyond the story of the ring itself. His purpose is to wake the Hobbits up to the fact that the Shire is isolated, a little bit of rural England circa turn of the twentieth century, in a bigger, dangerous, magical world.
He is also the vehicle by which Merry receives the one weapon that can actually kill the Witch King. The movie glosses over this by having Strider provide the weapon that is eventually used two movies later to do the deed.
Who Bombadil is and why the ring has no immediate effect on him is actually danced around at the Council of Elrond. He is the First, basically a manifestation of Middle Earth itself, the eldest living being, existing before the elves and before Melkor (Saurons boss) entered the world. Elrond says that while the ring probably wouldn't corrupt him that he would not be able to resist a extended siege by Sauron, "unless the earth itself could resist him."
Since the destruction of Melkor resulted in corruption of the world itself, this seemed unlikely.
Brought to you by the otherwise useless undergraduate course in the mythology of C.S. Lewis & JRR Tolkien.
Re:"... might not encompass all of the characters" by cyberchondriac · 2017-11-10 09:54 · Score: 1

"Brought to you by the otherwise useless undergraduate course in the mythology of C.S. Lewis & JRR Tolkien."

;-)
I still don't get why Bombadil represented to the hobbits the world outside the shire. With or without him, they were to find that out anyway, in a most severe crash course over the next year or so. I guess it was the sing-y bits that irked me though. I suppose they were relevant though, in the way that many cultures pass on down information or customs via song; and in those older British decades, that kind of thing was more common than today.
Granted, I read the book(s) only once, about 8 years ago, so I've forgotten much of it.

--

Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.

It is harder to be original. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 14:48 · Score: 0

So why not wring every last drop out of that franchise until it is ruined.

Please no by Ayano · 2017-11-05 14:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

To take a cherished series that already has a complete movie adaption? Either we're watching the events unfold with un-filmed scenes from the books at a slow rate... or we'll be getting non-lore spin-offs in middle earth.

Both sound awful.

--
I don't read AC

Re:Please no by DontBeAMoran · 2017-11-05 14:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

J.J. Abrams ruined both Star Wars and Star Trek. Let's make it a trifecta and also ruin LotR.
...
"I feel a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of nerds suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly speechless. I fear something terrible will happen." - Darth Picard of Middle Earth

--
#DeleteFacebook
Re:Please no by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 15:08 · Score: 0

The estate is so pissed at the quality of those movies that they aren't going to approve any further adaptations any time soon.
Re:Please no by FatdogHaiku · 2017-11-05 15:25 · Score: 2

Now we see the Dark Side of The Farce!

--
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
Re:Please no by fizzer06 · 2017-11-05 15:56 · Score: 5, Funny

Pretty sure "J. J." initials stand for "Jar Jar".
Re: Please no by bestweasel · 2017-11-05 16:14 · Score: 1

"Tolkien Estate is looking to sell the television rights to the iconic fantasy series to the tune of $200-250 million"
Grima Wormtongue must have found a job there.
Re:Please no by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 16:14 · Score: 0

"Use the force, Harry."
Re: Please no by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 16:17 · Score: 0

Really awful. The statement says it all with 'replicating the success of GoT'. No one involved in this is interested in creating a good or unique show, only $$$ and data. Business as usual for both Hollywood and Silicon Valley (I know, Seattle, technically). The lack of heart or imagination is just breathtaking.
Re:Please no by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 16:21 · Score: 0

The Burrahobbitses of Brandywine Lane.
Re:Please no by alvinrod · 2017-11-05 16:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

I don't think we need another adaptation of Lord of the Rings, but I think it would be fucking awesome to get a series that focuses around the Silmarillion. There's enough there to make several seasons worth of a show and you can easily use all of other Tolkien's works set in Middle Earth if the series is popular enough. By the time you get through all of that, perhaps move on to the Hobbit or Lord of the Rings, but when there's so much other wonderful material from the man out there, why retread the same ground, especially when the Peter Jackson movies were quite good for the time and still hold up rather well.
Re:Please no by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 17:40 · Score: 0

What do you mean you don't want to watch the adventures of Frodo's adopted half-Istari sister of color (something other than gray, red or white which are taken) as she travels around Middle Earth showing everyone how they are doing everything wrong? Are you some kind of Ist-ist?
Re:Please no by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 20:21 · Score: 0

The movie adaptation are bad.
Characters doing the opposite they do in the story ?
Useless scenes (after so they check all the boxes for broad audiences)
Important characters/scenes removed.
And the final, the last important step in the hero's journey is missing. ... here is me hoping the TV serie will be better in that regard.
Re:Please no by Scarletdown · 2017-11-05 22:03 · Score: 3, Funny

They need to make a change to the scene in The Hobbit where Legolas is surfing on the barrels. Have him break the fourth wall by musing about how many kids are going to fail their book reports and out themselves as cheaters by reporting on this scene.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.
Re:Please no by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 22:35 · Score: 0

J.J. Abrams ruined both Star Wars and Star Trek. Let's make it a trifecta and also ruin LotR.
...
"I feel a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of nerds suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly speechless. I fear something terrible will happen." - Darth Picard of Middle Earth
Come on.
In the case of Star Wars, it's not like George Lucas didn't hand over a giant steamer.
Re:Please no by Hognoxious · 2017-11-05 23:29 · Score: 1

You jest, but an orvillised[1] version might be quite good.
[1] Yes it is, now.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Please no by Oswald+McWeany · 2017-11-06 02:19 · Score: 2

Pretty sure "J. J." initials stand for "Jar Jar".
In his Lord of the Rings remake, Jar Jar is tasked to take the ring to Mordor and destroy it. The great wizard, Spock himself, chooses Jar Jar to undertake the journey.

--
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Re:Please no by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 04:06 · Score: 0

could be worse could be made by Disney.
Re:Please no by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 07:55 · Score: 0

The next natural step is to turn the Hobbit into a miniseries spanning 3 seasons, right?
Re:Please no by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 10:21 · Score: 0

I expect "diverse casting". So expect a black aragorn, black pippin, black gandalf, black galadriel, and probably black gimli.
It'll be horrible and it will be designed explicitly to degenerate the stories since white people like them because it's based on our mythology.
Re:Please no by david_thornley · 2017-11-07 09:05 · Score: 1

The latest Harry Dresden novel comes uncomfortably close to that

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Why not use another fantasy series by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 14:52 · Score: 0

I am no expert but there are a multitude of other fantasy series that have a lot of books and followers.
Why not make those into a series?

Re:Why not use another fantasy series by sheramil · 2017-11-05 18:54 · Score: 1

I am no expert but there are a multitude of other fantasy series that have a lot of books and followers. Why not make those into a series?
Because, unfortunately, Rowan Atkinson is just a little too old to play Cugel the Clever, although Ian Holm would be perfect to play Iucounu.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eyes_of_the_Overworld
Re:Why not use another fantasy series by fewnorms · 2017-11-06 04:05 · Score: 1

Oh please make this into a series one day.
For that matter, the whole Dying Earth series could be made into a series.

--
Veni, Vidi, Velcro!

Missing the whole point by MrLogic17 · 2017-11-05 14:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

Anyone who's comparing LOtR to GoT clearly doesn't understand anything about Tolkien and why he was writing his stories. ...and if you mess with something you don't understand, you will wreck it. Badly.

Re:Missing the whole point by ravenshrike · 2017-11-05 15:15 · Score: 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Re:Missing the whole point by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 15:32 · Score: 0

That's taking the wrong lesson away from the analogy. Game of Thrones did one thing incredibly well: produce a D&D medieval fantasy world that's not only critically acclaimed, but publicly beloved as well. For several years they've been the #1 most talked about shows on television and are the flagship in HBO's high profile original series. They made high fantasy acceptable for a mainstream audience, which as good as they were, the LOTR movies couldn't really accomplish.
Re:Missing the whole point by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 15:54 · Score: 0

At the end of the day Game of thrones has simply a larger range of content that appeals to a larger demographic whereas LOTR (as much as I love the books) is a great deal more restrained in content.
Re:Missing the whole point by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2017-11-05 16:31 · Score: 2

Unlike GoT, full nude sex scenes, even between brother and sister, are something LotR is not known for.

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Re:Missing the whole point by whyyisthissohard · 2017-11-05 16:33 · Score: 0

you will wreck it. Badly.
That's the point..........
To wreck it so people can't understand it.
Were you born yesterday?
Every message in The Lord of the Rings is antithetical to this system.
This is Mordor. Sauron is king. The Shire has been left Unscoured. 90%+ of all people you see every day are orcs. The Nazgul give you orders through the schools, media, and banks. Our society has a Morgul blade worming its way to its heart and it is becoming a wraith.
It's one of the few stories left that provides inspiration to keep fighting, and the media machine reduces people's perception of it to "LOL MIDGET SWORD MAGIC ADVENTURE".
Re:Missing the whole point by PhrostyMcByte · 2017-11-05 16:52 · Score: 1

Anyone who's comparing LOtR to GoT clearly doesn't understand anything about Tolkien and why he was writing his stories.
Indeed. GRRM has specifically said he set out for GoT to be a "what happens after LotR" kind of story -- to see how a kingdom falls apart after the happy ending.
Re:Missing the whole point by DontBeAMoran · 2017-11-05 17:12 · Score: 1

...if you mess with something you don't understand, you will wreck it. Badly.
That explains everything Star Trek-related released after 2005.

--
#DeleteFacebook
Re:Missing the whole point by OrangeTide · 2017-11-05 18:00 · Score: 2

Anyone who's comparing LOtR to GoT clearly doesn't understand anything about Tolkien and why he was writing his stories. ...and if you mess with something you don't understand, you will wreck it. Badly.
They understand a lot about making lots of money. And really, that's all that matters when making a TV show.

--
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Re:Missing the whole point by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 18:47 · Score: 0

There was that coy little relationship between Gimli and Lothlorien. And did Aragorn and count as bestaility? And was it bestiality for the elf, or for the human?
Re: Missing the whole point by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 18:51 · Score: 1

RotK won Best Picture. People watched those movies.
Rather, GoT would have never gotten approved had LotR not paved the way.
Re: Missing the whole point by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 19:15 · Score: 0

Anyone who's comparing LOtR to GoT clearly doesn't understand anything about Tolkien and why he was writing his stories. ...and if you mess with something you don't understand, you will wreck it. Badly.
The study of Tolkien's delusional universe is quite common psychology. Maybe not everyone has an appreciation of his psychosis, but there is no way that it would slip through, not even in the Hollywood crowd.
Re:Missing the whole point by Scarletdown · 2017-11-05 22:05 · Score: 1

Considering they were both sentient beings, it would not have been bestiality.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.
Re:Missing the whole point by dunkelfalke · 2017-11-05 22:31 · Score: 1

Except what happened after LOtR is our history. Canonically our world is the LOtR world after the magic was gone.

--
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Re:Missing the whole point by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 01:49 · Score: 0

Perhaps they should do the Silmarillion then - see Turin and Nienor
Re:Missing the whole point by Oswald+McWeany · 2017-11-06 02:33 · Score: 1

I liked GoT, was excited when they turned it into a TV series; think they did a pretty good job. I'm annoyed that GRRM is too distracted to write now though. Wish the TV series waited until the books were finished.
I thought LOtR was decent. Was excited about the movies coming out, although I wasn't too thrilled with the movies. Not at all excited about the TV series. I don't know why, but it sounds like they just want to drag it out and extend it and turn it into a many year epic. Personally, I'd rather they do something original and not just extend a story we all already know.

--
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Re:Missing the whole point by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 04:59 · Score: 0

Except what happened after LOtR is our history. Canonically our world is the LOtR world after the magic was gone.
Tolkien did say that Middle Earth was Europe, with the Shire eventually becoming England. Read the books of Lost Tales.
Re:Missing the whole point by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 05:35 · Score: 0

Yep, LotR was fantasy and GoT is a soap opera. Similar though to a lesser degree, Star Wars is more fantasy-oriented and Star Trek is more soap operaish.
Re:Missing the whole point by whyyisthissohard · 2017-11-06 05:53 · Score: 1

For these people, ruining it IS the whole point.
To wreck it so people can't understand it.
Were you born yesterday?
Every message in The Lord of the Rings is antithetical to this system.
This is Mordor. Sauron is king. The Shire has been left Unscoured. 90%+ of all people you see every day are orcs. The Nazgul give you orders through the schools, media, and banks. Our society has a Morgul blade worming its way to its heart and it is becoming a wraith.
It's one of the few stories left that provides inspiration to keep fighting, and the media machine reduces people's perception of it to "LOL MIDGET SWORD MAGIC ADVENTURE".

No by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 14:53 · Score: 0

Pretty please?

I know how the Lord of the Rings TV series ends by Neo-Rio-101 · 2017-11-05 14:53 · Score: 5, Funny

At the end of the new Lord of the Rings TV series, the hobbits must come up against a danger worse than Sauron.

They must face off against the ghost of JRR Tolkien, whom they end up flogging to death.

--
READY.
PRINT ""+-0

Re:I know how the Lord of the Rings TV series ends by Roger+W+Moore · 2017-11-05 16:58 · Score: 1

No, at the end of the first series they defeat Sauron. It's the second series where they have to defeat someone even greater. However, Tolkien has that covered because Sauron was only a servant of Melkor so it will only be the third series when they have to get really creative!
Re:I know how the Lord of the Rings TV series ends by mrbester · 2017-11-05 18:53 · Score: 1

Melkor was thrown through the Doors of Night. As T-Bird said "there ain't no comin' back"

--
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Re:I know how the Lord of the Rings TV series ends by tommeke100 · 2017-11-06 00:46 · Score: 1

LOTR TV series will stretch the last goodbye and farewells at the end of the story for the whole last season of 22 episodes.
Re:I know how the Lord of the Rings TV series ends by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 05:17 · Score: 0

No, at the end of the first series they defeat Sauron. It's the second series where they have to defeat someone even greater. However, Tolkien has that covered because Sauron was only a servant of Melkor so it will only be the third series when they have to get really creative!
Argh! Souron is Melkor!

EW! Yuck! What a stinker! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 14:54 · Score: 0

Even the movies sucked balls. This can only be worse.

Wheel of Time, please by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 14:57 · Score: 0

How about the Wheel of Time instead? That series would fit TV better than feature-length films anyway. At 1 chapter per episode, that would be about 30 seasons.

Re:Wheel of Time, please by gravewax · 2017-11-05 16:01 · Score: 1

except after the 4 season everyone would be bored shitless with the story going nowhere
Re:Wheel of Time, please by jsm300 · 2017-11-05 18:41 · Score: 1

Maybe because Sony Pictures Television has already announced plans to do a Wheel of Time TV series last April? Of course, there have been many other announced plans to do so, and nothing has happened so far. But the Sony announcement at least seemed to be grounded in reality.
Re:Wheel of Time, please by Scarletdown · 2017-11-05 22:08 · Score: 1

Xanth perhaps? It would be good for at least a half season before it st
arted losing its appeal and becoming rehashes with the protagonists getting younger and younger until we have a sperm cell and an egg cell out on an adventure.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.
Re:Wheel of Time, please by Scarletdown · 2017-11-05 22:09 · Score: 1

Or the Spellsinger series. I loved that one in my younger days and have always wanted to see it brought to the screen (either big screen or small).

--
This space unintentionally left blank.
Re:Wheel of Time, please by Altrag · 2017-11-06 08:08 · Score: 1

There's no reason they would have to keep all the filler that was used to stretch the trilogy out to 12 books + addendums/prequels/etc.
You could easily get an exciting 4 seasons out of WoT. Every third book was essentially a major climax, which would translate fairly straightforward into a season finale. You could maybe push it to 5 or 6 seasons if you reorganized events a bit and used some of the minor cliffhangers as season finales as well. But 4 is almost a gimme with that series if someone wanted to put the money in to do it well (ie: not like the existing low-budget adaptations that are kind of terrible.)

Explore side lore by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 14:59 · Score: 0

I'm playing middle earth shadow of mordor and it very well made. I'd watch a tv series of this. Don't try to milk the main characters more than they have been.

Overrated by lucasnate1 · 2017-11-05 15:00 · Score: 0

I really don't understand why LoTR is appreciated so much. E.T.A. Hoffman, Edgar Allen Poe, and likely others, have written much better fantasy. Tolkien's only achievement was writing something long and consistent, giving up completely on deep characterization and interesting plot. I really don't get why people admire him so much. Hell, I'd take J.K. Rowling over him every day, even though I don't like her much either.

--
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction

Re:Overrated by Dan+East · 2017-11-05 15:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

Really? J.K. Rowling over Tolkien?? Are we talking about the same Rowling who just invents things out of thin air every time she needs a plot device? The same author who invoked time travel in one single plot line but for some reason time travel was never used in any story before or after? I'm sorry, but as a fantasy author, Rowling is awful. I'll give you that Tolkien isn't known for "deep characterization", however I believe his plot lines are far more interesting and logical than Rowling's. Stephen King has incredibly "deep characterization" in The Stand, but that book totally falls apart, invoking deus ex machina in the end because he couldn't resolve the story even after killing off half the main characters. It's purely a matter of personal preference, but I prefer Tolkien's heavy-handed, consistent style of writing that is logical and historic in nature over Tolkien or even King's fantasy works.

--
Better known as 318230.
Re:Overrated by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 15:56 · Score: 0

Everybody who is popular actually sucks! Look at how smart and unique I am, for pointing out such a provocative idea. Pay attention to me!
Re: Overrated by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 16:12 · Score: 0

Rowling was writing a young adult series. It didn't need to be complicated or thought provoking. Get over yourself for finding her work "simple".
As for King, he goes to the deux ex machina so often he retconned the whole thing as the Dark Tower series. Still he can write. I am not completely certain how original some of his books (i.e. borrowed from Lovecraft) but that's the way the literary world works. Lovecraft borrowed from Dunsany.
Tolkien created a rich, many layered world. That's why it's popular.
Re: Overrated by sound+vision · 2017-11-05 19:30 · Score: 1

Plenty of sci fi and fantasy authors do this. Sometimes it's used as a crutch, sometimes it enhances the story, usually it's a mixture of both. Tolkien wasn't immune to this either... The eagles show up to carry Hobbits only when it's convenient. That said, the books aren't comparable for a bunch of reasons, this is way down on the list. Totally different styles of writing, different experiences reading.
Re: Overrated by avandesande · 2017-11-06 01:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

The Eagles weren't really an important part of the plot- the hobbits destroyed the ring. Saving their lives with deux machina was just window dressing or perhaps even meant to allegorical...

--
love is just extroverted narcissism
Re:Overrated by Oswald+McWeany · 2017-11-06 02:26 · Score: 1

Really? J.K. Rowling over Tolkien?? Are we talking about the same Rowling who just invents things out of thin air every time she needs a plot device? The same author who invoked time travel in one single plot line but for some reason time travel was never used in any story before or after? ... ... but that book totally falls apart, invoking deus ex machina in the end because he couldn't resolve the story
Actually, one thing I don't like about Tolkien is exactly what you criticize the other authors for. He was very much inventing things just for a plot device then ignoring them and resolving problems with deus ex machine. A lot of authors do this, and Tolkien is very much one of them.

--
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Re: Overrated by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 04:38 · Score: 0

Rowling was writing a young adult series. It didn't need to be complicated or thought provoking. Get over yourself for finding her work "simple".
You sound butthurt. The previous post had in fact compared Rowling to Tolkien, so the fact that she wrote for young adults is not an excuse if one is tossing both hats into the same ring. Not to mention that, by the fourth book, she was attempting to write at much more mature level than she did with the first two books.
Still, she created a very in-depth, fascinating universe, absolutely; but the plot holes and so-so prose are also undeniable.
As case in point, Time Turners. Okay, so they're all destroyed in Book 5 and can't be used any longer, but what about before, when Voldy had his first run? It can't be said they were considered too dangerous to use because they lent one out to a 3rd year student so she could double up on classes, FFS.
Re:Overrated by enjar · 2017-11-06 05:21 · Score: 1

> I really don't understand why LoTR is appreciated so much.
LOTR was published in 1954. Tolkein didn't have the benefit of half a century of people re-writing his stories to make it better. Look at Golden Age sci-fi. You have some standouts who wrote some good stuff in the 50's and 60's, but they also wrote a lot of crap in those days, too. If you've read recent fantasy, you are reading people who grew up on refined versions of Tolkein, so yeah, a lot of today's fantasy (and scifi) is going to be better written. But that can happen with any genre. Read old mysteries and then something by a good mystery writer today and there's decades of improvement.
As for JK Rowling, she's a beneficiary of Tolkien, too. I won't lie and say I didn't enjoy Harry Potter, it was an entertaining series. But you can trace familiar elements of her story right back to what Tolkien did when he wrote LOTR. I don't think Tolkien was the best author, either -- but it's easy to criticize, hard to actually DO.
Re: Overrated by jaa101 · 2017-11-06 11:29 · Score: 1

"I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence." JRR Tolkien.
Re: Overrated by avandesande · 2017-11-07 06:42 · Score: 1

Maybe allegory isn't really the light word for it. I am sure that Tolkein was just as aware that the eagles were a flimsy plot device...

--
love is just extroverted narcissism
Re: Overrated by david_thornley · 2017-11-07 09:12 · Score: 1

I've seen speculation that the eagles were a literal deus ex machina, sent by Eru on specific errands.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

That's what by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 15:04 · Score: 0

That's what Bilbo Baggins hates! /not a nerd... never read any of the books //the movies were kinda cool... Needed some naked elf chicks ///Bet they make bilbo a homosexual in the TV series

Re:That's what by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 16:04 · Score: 0

Bilbo is a homo. Why else did he never marry a chick and only hung out with dudes?
Re: That's what by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 16:17 · Score: 0

There's also his desire for the one ring.
Re:That's what by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 17:53 · Score: 0

Bilbo is a homo. Why else did he never marry a chick and only hung out with dudes?
So he's the Jesus of Bag End?
Re:That's what by Scarletdown · 2017-11-05 22:13 · Score: 1

That would be the same reason Smeagol never married. His life was consumed by the Ring (except he only turned into a lech, not a Gollum type thing.
"I sit on the floor and pick my nose, and think of dirty things; of dragons who wear rubber suits, and Elves who drub their dings..."

--
This space unintentionally left blank.
Re:That's what by Hal_Porter · 2017-11-05 23:50 · Score: 1

Bilbo is a homo. Why else did he never marry a chick and only hung out with dudes?
No problem. They'll just need to give him A Case Of The Not Gays in the TV show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;

DUMB ASS!!!! by Heebie · 2017-11-05 15:08 · Score: 1

This is a DUMB ASS!!!! idea, and should be nipped in the bud long before it starts to grow.. it would be a cancerous canker on the world of fantasy, and a great big pile of steaming shite on J.R.R. Tolkien's grave!

Re:DUMB ASS!!!! by OrangeTide · 2017-11-05 18:07 · Score: 2

Well it's not your work and you don't get to decide what happens to it. Tolkien's estate gets to decide how much garbage rehashing of these stories get to be done in order to make a quick buck.
If you don't like it, vote with your dollars and stick to the novels. Preferably used copies so you can short his heirs from even that tiny amount of profit.

--
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire

TV series.... by turkeydance · 2017-11-05 15:08 · Score: 1

aren't we beyond that? there's some sexual harassment suit in there somewhere.

Should have chosen The Wheel of Time. by thedarb · 2017-11-05 15:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

I worry I'll never see it as I imagine it. If only I were a director!

--
This sig intentionally left blank.

Re:Should have chosen The Wheel of Time. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 16:03 · Score: 0

We have plenty of boring stuff already, I think they are actually looking for good stuff to turn into shows not books that were overly dragged out with so much filler that it chased away most readers by the 4th or 5th book.
Re:Should have chosen The Wheel of Time. by thedarb · 2017-11-05 16:49 · Score: 1

You don't have to have the filler in the TV series. I mean, it's not DBZ.

--
This sig intentionally left blank.
Re:Should have chosen The Wheel of Time. by DontBeAMoran · 2017-11-05 17:18 · Score: 1

Look, just because it took five episodes to build up to a fight scene that lasted seven episodes is no reason to hate on DBZ.

--
#DeleteFacebook
Re:Should have chosen The Wheel of Time. by Dutch+Gun · 2017-11-05 17:54 · Score: 1

Ahaha... seven episodes? Surely you jest. Goku vs Frieza lasted nineteen episodes.

--
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Re:Should have chosen The Wheel of Time. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 18:25 · Score: 0

Here's hoping this happens someday and they use material Sanderson didn't - I want to see Bao the Wyld.
Re:Should have chosen The Wheel of Time. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 19:56 · Score: 0

Wait.. wait...
If you trim the recap at the begining and the previews at the end of each episode, how many minutes of actual fight are there?
Re:Should have chosen The Wheel of Time. by 91degrees · 2017-11-05 20:13 · Score: 1

Adaptations can and do take liberties. LOTR movies took out a lot of unneeded scenes. House Of Cards relocated from the House of Commons to the House of Representatives. Game Of Thrones didn't wait several years to tell us what happens next.
Re:Should have chosen The Wheel of Time. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 20:24 · Score: 0

If by fight you mean actually fighting (by opposition to talking) ... 5 ? 15 ? minutes ?
Re:Should have chosen The Wheel of Time. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 21:45 · Score: 0

There's been two adaptations of House of Cards.
Re:Should have chosen The Wheel of Time. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 00:28 · Score: 0

This would be an ideal candidate IMHO as I see a lot of 'back- & side-story' potential. Things that only get touched on during the books, could be fleshed out much more in the series. The 'Game of Houses' (reading in German) and the going ons in other places could really be interesting.
To be honest, I see a LOT of similarities between GoT and WoT ... a lot.
I just finished the 3rd book (yeah I know I am late) but for me the only problem the books have it that there are just not enough people dying. Or at least people I care about.
Re:Should have chosen The Wheel of Time. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 05:05 · Score: 0

You also need to take out the training, developing new techniques that ultimately fail, and onlookers shouting in disbelief as the designated good guy punching bag dies. Also the random questing for some mundane object that is sure to be the key to victory and/or various incarnations of Dragon Balls. That should leave you with about 10-15 seconds of fighting per episode, not counting replays of attacks shown from different angles (that's about 30 seconds per episode).

LotR IS ALREADY a TV series by williamyf · 2017-11-05 15:10 · Score: 2

Just Slice the three movies and the extra footage in a slightly different way, and ther eyou have it.

If Amazon (or any other party), wants better material for a TV series, get the rights on "The Silmarillion"...

Plenty of material, for many, many seasons, plenty of latitude for variation from book to TV (as it was not nearly concluded as is), more sex (including incest, like Game of Thrones), and no pesky comparision to the movies (with it's big budget actors and big budget FX)...

--
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!

Enough already by DontBeAMoran · 2017-11-05 15:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

HBO has Game of Thrones? Alright.

Unless all you're planning to do is steal their audience, it won't happen. Stop pandering the same audience over and over again. You need something different to grab the people who still don't have Netflix/Amazon Video/HBO Now/etc or who will subscribe to a second or third streaming service.

Right now, there is a serious lack of real/good science-fiction series. The 100 is good but while it started out as science-fiction, it sort of derailed into a game of thrones clone. What next? A planet of the apes tv show reboot?

If you don't want to take risks there's plenty of good, well-known science-fiction titles that could probably make a good tv show: Terminator (pick it up where The Sarah Connor Chronicles dropped the ball, it seems the show got cancelled just as it was beginning to be interesting), Predator (not purely science-fiction, but hey, it's a known title), Aliens (plenty of spaceships and colonies to be infested), etc.

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised to see a reboot of Knight Rider done with a Google Maps car, a Tesla or something.

Hell, talk to Valve and get the rights to make a TV show from Half-Life/Portal. GlaDOS is the perfect vilain you kinda root for, in secret. She's like a Bond vilain from the old movies.

What about a comedy spy tv show? Make a show with the worst spies possible, something similar to Johnny English or Frank Drebin.

ANYTHING except another fucking show with kings, swords and shitty politics and shit like that.

--
#DeleteFacebook

Re:Enough already by Dan+East · 2017-11-05 15:31 · Score: 1

Unless all you're planning to do is steal their audience, it won't happen.
Game of Thrones only has one season left, and it will only have 6 episodes. Granted, they will surely produce some other spinoff series based on GoT, however there will be a large group of viewers ready to start watching some other (similar) epic series from the beginning once GoT has wrapped up. The final season will not air for about a year, so that gives the LOTR series enough time to sort things out and begin production so it can air less than a year after GoT ends.
Anyway what I'm saying is LOTR wouldn't compete with GoT (in first-run episodes) because GoT will already be done.

--
Better known as 318230.
Re:Enough already by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2017-11-05 16:44 · Score: 3, Informative

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised to see a reboot of Knight Rider done with a Google Maps car, a Tesla or something.
Just want to point out, they have rebooted Knight Rider a few times.

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Re:Enough already by PhrostyMcByte · 2017-11-05 17:52 · Score: 1

This is my biggest worry about the Kingkiller Chronicle adaptation that's been hinted at for a while. The network will be looking at it to bring over the GoT audience, and the story will absolutely fall flat if they try to force it.
Re:Enough already by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 19:49 · Score: 0

Knight Rider is a car commercial, so it makes sense that it'd be easier to find financing.
Re:Enough already by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 00:11 · Score: 0

Not just kings&swords but we have the same shows in different looks. Nothing really innovative. Innovation = let's do what they are doing, just different.
Also they all have the same 'Hollywood'-level writing and scripts. Cheese, T&A and Michael Bay action.
GoT was that good because it was based off of books with a solid backstory and established history and tried to stay true to them. Add in a solid story and people that will create the right series to do the books justice. Everything in it was solid.
Plus they killed off main characters and that is ALWAYS a plus in my books.
Sadly what usually happens is that they take the story and 'Hollywood' it up. That is why J.J. keeps failing.
Star Trek was never about the constant action and because of that, the action was impactfull. It is kinda like a GoT fight vs a Jackie Chan fight. I love Jackie, but you knew in a GoT fight, sh1t was about to get ugly and not very fancy.
Action wears off fast and then you have to +1 it all the time. Give me one fight, one really good fight, but sell it to me that this is THE fight and make me fear for the characters that just grew on me. Don't give me drama after drama in which everyone always survives...
It does not have to be fantasy or scifi, but something with substance and a focus on the story.
I could imagine a series about (the real) Hannibal (or other heroes) being awesome. Or a series based off of the works of Arthur C. Clarke et al.
Some of my favorite shows hardly had the Hollywood level or shine or the ratings. But they had character.
Today I see this in 'Rick and Morty' which luckily has the fan-base it deserves right now, instead of the usual 'after syndication'.
As an example I'd like to present the 'Hap and Leonard', available on Amazon Prime. I found it to be very much like reading a book were the story unfolds throughout the season.
Or the very excellent 'Line of Duty' that really liberates you from the 'black & white' world we are usually presented and gives you a world of shades and complexities. Good and evil are not clear and view-specific. Where motives are never clear and where the 'good guys' do not always win.
Re:Enough already by AmiMoJo · 2017-11-06 00:39 · Score: 1

How about Buck Rogers? A society run by AI, lots of opportunities to contrast with modern times.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Enough already by Gilgaron · 2017-11-06 01:38 · Score: 1

Speaking of book series that appear to have lost the author's attention...
Re:Enough already by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 01:46 · Score: 0

Sorry, but those books just suck. It's about 3x too long (the second book is ridiculous). What a boring TV show that would be.
Re:Enough already by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 01:48 · Score: 0

Wool was supposed to be in the works, but it seems to have stalled out again. Great concept, and it would translate into a great series.
Re:Enough already by DontBeAMoran · 2017-11-06 01:56 · Score: 1

South Park did it.

--
#DeleteFacebook
Re:Enough already by tbannist · 2017-11-06 05:31 · Score: 1

What about a comedy spy tv show? Make a show with the worst spies possible, something similar to Johnny English or Frank Drebin.
Of course, there have been a few spy comedies. Some, like InSecurity, were not well loved, and others, like Chuck, were. They even tried to revive Get Smart as a TV Show, in the 90s. It didn't go well. A new Get Smart TV show could be amazing, but Steve Carrell's too busy to do a TV show, right now.
For some reason, I don't feel like now would be the right time for a comedic spy show (other than the one taking place in the White House), but maybe we'll be surprised.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re:Enough already by d0rp · 2017-11-06 06:38 · Score: 1

What about a comedy spy tv show? Make a show with the worst spies possible, something similar to Johnny English or Frank Drebin.
So, Chuck?
Re:Enough already by jaa101 · 2017-11-06 11:45 · Score: 1

The 100 is good but while it started out as science-fiction, it sort of derailed into a game of thrones clone.
The key to this is to have to plot arc planned from the beginning for all the seasons you plan to make, and then never make any more seasons after that. That's a huge strength of franchises like Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Babylon 5, etc. Shows where the writers just sit down at the beginning of each show or even at the beginning of each season and ask "what should we do now to keep the ratings up" inevitably lose direction the longer they run.
As for The 100, that was always going to be yet another post-apocalyptic survivors drama with a stronger-than-usual dash of science fiction. And the science was just terrible. Just for starters, the station was obviously in a low orbit but everyone landing on the ground landed in the same place, no matter how unplanned their descent.
Re:Enough already by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 23:14 · Score: 0

Actually there was, like 5+ years ago, a British show called 'Spy' and it was actually funny.

As Game of Thrones is becoming the LOTR movies by Leuf · 2017-11-05 15:19 · Score: 1

I guess since Game of Thrones is throwing away everything that made it different from all the other crap in the early seasons in favor of nonsensical spectacle it's only fitting to turn the nonsensical spectacle of the LOTR movies into a realistic television series.

Re:As Game of Thrones is becoming the LOTR movies by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 16:07 · Score: 0

Game of thrones is following the books (mostly), sadly what you are seeing is much of his best writing was done in the first few books a long long time ago and the more recent ones are far more rushed.
Re:As Game of Thrones is becoming the LOTR movies by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 16:18 · Score: 1

If you call 5 years a book rushed, but I get what you mean.
Re:As Game of Thrones is becoming the LOTR movies by Leuf · 2017-11-05 17:10 · Score: 1

We have no idea how closely they've been following what GRRM intends for most of the last two seasons. Yes, they've had to make a lot of changes because GRRM failed to move the plot anywhere in the last 2000 pages, but no, they didn't have to abandon storytelling for spectacle.
I've always felt with the LOTR movies that Jackson put all his energy into trying to make the difficult to adapt sections of the books work on screen. When it came to the big moments, the stuff that was supposed to be "easy" all the effort went into the technical challenges. So it all just feels empty. So I could get behind a tv adaptation the way that the early GoT seasons were done. Whern they didn't have the budget for spectacle and they expected a lot out of the audience besides the ability to suspend disbelief.

But LotR is nothing like the ASoIaF or the GoT ! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 15:31 · Score: 0

The only thing in common maybe they're fantasy story, but that's like a whole genre.

Someone needs to make Dragonlance by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 15:36 · Score: 0

LOTR has been flogged to death.... Dragonlance would deliver...

Re:Someone needs to make Dragonlance by gravewax · 2017-11-05 16:08 · Score: 2

or a series around Drizzt
Re:Someone needs to make Dragonlance by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 00:36 · Score: 0

Personally I'd take the Dragonslance saga first. It has a lower entry level and can get the ball rolling.
The next show can then be based around the IWD saga.
IWD & Fearun is very heavy on backstory and background info you had to know. Drizzt was not a 'just' a white haired Bro-Elf with some cool swords and a huge cat.
Re:Someone needs to make Dragonlance by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 05:28 · Score: 0

Only if they can get a writer who can do a decent plot. Salvatore excels at developing characters, but his plotting can be mind-numbingly awful. I can't even bring myself to read the last decade or so worth of books because I know it will be all build-up without any satisfying resolution. Such a waste.

Why not? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 15:40 · Score: 0

as a fan of the whole LOTR/Hobbit series, I say why not? Plenty of Tolkien tales haven't been told on film. Go for it - it will stand or fall on it's own.

Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 17:27 · Score: 0

I think the Hobbit is due for a reboot, perhaps then we could all forget about how horrible that 3 movie snoozefest was. It's beyond me why they felt they could take a relatively short book for young adults and turn it into a movie series of similar length to the one that was based on the much more complicated LOTR series that weighed in at over a thousand pages with several different plot lines.

Iâ(TM)d buy that for a dollar... by UttBuggly · 2017-11-05 16:09 · Score: 1

It might suck less than years of glistening penises and ripping off every decent property like Anne McCaffreyâ(TM)s Dragonriders Of Pern.

THATâ(TM)S the series Amazon or Netflix should do. At least the first trilogy.

--
I am my own gestalt.

Re:Iâ(TM)d buy that for a dollar... by ChoGGi · 2017-11-05 21:53 · Score: 1

For better or worse WB has the rights to it.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.c...
I'd also prefer a show, but a movie is better than nothing for now.
Re:Iâ(TM)d buy that for a dollar... by Baron_Yam · 2017-11-06 00:42 · Score: 1

I think the term is 'squee'. I had no idea there was a movie adaptation in the works.
I'd hope they follow the books, only put them in chronological order and clean up the inconsistencies caused by McCaffrey writing them out of sequence.
And definitely tone down the 'strong woman except eventually she has to be rescued by a stronger man' vibe that many of the stories give off.
And out of all of the stories, I think I'd most like to see the Harper Hall trilogy adapted. On the other hand, Dragonsdawn and All the Weyrs of Pern would be a nice science-fiction / action pair to lead into what is more or less a fantasy series of all the stories in between with the scifi elements missing.

Leave it to the cokeheads,to ruin everything great by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 16:31 · Score: 0

I'm sure they will ride this horse to death too. And then some. Actually mostly after death.

And yes, by cokeheads I mean the media industry.

Could be something different by Roger+W+Moore · 2017-11-05 16:48 · Score: 1

To take a cherished series that already has a complete movie adaption?

I sort of see your point but the films skipped over large chunks of story (e.g. Saruman in the Shire), completely changed characters and rewrote events and locations so the timeline became impossible. If the TV adaption was more like the BBC radio series and less like the Hollywood action film trilogy it would be something quite different...although it's still probably a bit too soon after the films.

Re:Could be something different by jabuzz · 2017-11-06 04:05 · Score: 2

Precisely. If we could just turning Aragon into someone full of doubt, and an elvish army turning up at Helms Deep, and the whole "wobbly" column crap in Moria. where the biggest WTF moments in the movies IMHO. Heck the flight from the Shire is utterly incomprehensible unless you watch the extended edition, which gets better but is still far from anything near the books.
All you need to do is start with the BBC radio script and put it on the screen. Would be thousand times better than the movies.

smart to get the money up front... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 16:49 · Score: 0

so when this crashes and burns, you still got paid.

A chance of Bombadil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 16:49 · Score: 0

So, no Tom Bombadil? Again?

There is a chance of Bombadil. He is marvelous, but so unessential to the main plot that he will almost certainly never be included unless the Lord of the Rings is adapted into a long series. They didn't even include him in the eleven-hour-long movie. He could easily show up in an episode maybe halfway through season 1, although the most beautiful language about him was at the Council of Elrond.

"Say rather that the ring has no power over him.... He might take it, if all the free peoples of the world begged him, but he would not see the need. .... In any event, we could not now take it back to him unguessed, unmarked by any spy. And even if we could, soon or late the Lord of the Rings would learn of its hiding place and bend all his power to it. Could that power be defied by Bombadil alone? I think not. In the end, if all else is overcome, Bombadil will fall, last as he was first. And then night will come."

Re: A chance of Bombadil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 18:48 · Score: 0

Huh. I thought they didn't consider giving him the Ring because he'd just lose it.
Re: A chance of Bombadil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 21:08 · Score: 0

There are other theories
Re:A chance of Bombadil by jabuzz · 2017-11-06 03:49 · Score: 1

He didn't appear in the BBC Radio adaptation either.
Re: A chance of Bombadil by JackieBrown · 2017-11-06 07:49 · Score: 1

This was very interesting. Might reread with this in mind. I wish it could be fleshed out more.

sitcom by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 16:58 · Score: 0

I see a show like Friends. sauron, gandalf, frodo, gollum, saruman, and aragorn all living in an apartment. wait, a reality show, better yet

They have other options by grasshoppa · 2017-11-05 17:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

There are so many beloved fantasy epics out there, it might be wise to avoid the almost-blasphemy of redoing LoTR.

Off the top of my head, I'd do Wheel of Time. Lacking that, then I'd buy the rights to the Stormlight Archive.

--
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!

Re:They have other options by enjar · 2017-11-06 05:24 · Score: 1

Or Abercrombie's "First Law" series. As a bonus, it's already complete!
Re:They have other options by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 06:20 · Score: 0

Off the top of my head, I'd do Wheel of Time. Lacking that, then I'd buy the rights to the Stormlight Archive.
Your head better be worth a lot, both of those have already been sold.

Silmarillion by way2slo · 2017-11-05 17:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

If you want to make a very good Tolkien based TV series, don't re-hash The Lord of the Rings or even The Hobbit.

Use the Silmarillion.

It won't happen as long as Christopher Tolkien is alive, but once the controlling rights to the book are out of his hands it could be done.

Lots of stories there, The Oath of Feanor, The Fall of Morgoth, Beren and Luthien, & The Rise and Fall of Gondolin to name a few. Lots of brand new characters, except for Galadriel but she does not do much. "Main Characters" die left and right. Still, lots of room to do your own thing. The book spans thousands of years and several Ages, but the series could just focus on the very end of the Age of Bliss to the end of the First Age. Competent writers could get at least 5-7 season out of it with plenty of action. Lots of terrible stuff going on then. 6 Great Battles, plus lots of minor skirmishes. Wurms, Dragons, Balrogs, etc.

Re:Silmarillion by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 00:37 · Score: 0

All wrapped in the most boring book you'll never read. You'll try, but then you'll return the book to the library. Years later you'll try again, and you'll say to yourself "What was I thinking? Really is the worst book ever."
Re:Silmarillion by jsepeta · 2017-11-06 02:35 · Score: 1

Hear, hear! let's do something similar but different. And hey Liv Tyler is still looking good.

--
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Re:Silmarillion by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-07 21:13 · Score: 0

Correction: In the beginning there was the world, sun and the world tree. The world tree was cut down by melkor and devoured by his companion Ungoliant. The last energy in the dieing tree was caught and poured into the three(?) silmarils. They were jewels forged by the great elven smith.Feanor. Later, in LOTR there is a white dead tree in Gondor, where the stewardship lords and Gandalf fights against the orcs. That white tree is an offspring to the world tree.

While they're at it, how about another "Dune"? by mykepredko · 2017-11-05 17:44 · Score: 1

There's another book/universe that hasn't been desecrated in a while.

Something magical (excuse the pun) happened with GoT - maybe it's because the author a) alive and can offer insights that might not be obvious from reading the books and b) is an experienced TV writer who can help guide the series. Or maybe it was sheer luck.

There are a lot of great Sci-Fi fantasy out there that deserves to be explored as TV series, how about trying to select one that won't elicit groans from geeks like us.

--
Mimetics Inc. Twitter

Like Game of Thrones by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 18:17 · Score: 0

But PG rated.

Fuck you, "The Verge!" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 18:44 · Score: 0

Fuck you!

Re: I know how the Lord of the Rings TV series end by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 18:53 · Score: 0

Gandalf's evil twin brother?

Re: I know how the Lord of the Rings TV series end by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 19:18 · Score: 0

No, at the end of the first series they defeat Sauron. It's the second series where they have to defeat someone even greater.

Jesus H Christ, Roger W Moore! Could you at least have relooked up the synopsis before making such a complete and utter arse out yourself?

I mean there is wrong, and then there is apparently you.

Witcher by eminencja · 2017-11-05 20:10 · Score: 1

What about the Witcher? I thought Netflix was in talks with the studio that did the game?

Re:Witcher by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-05 20:38 · Score: 0

As far as I know, it hasn't been canned. So it might come out. Hopefully it will be better than that early 2000s TV attempt at it.
As someone who has read the books, I'd be cautious if they planned to follow them. It would have to be adapted similar to the way Game of Thrones was. Some characters would need more screen time to make sure the audience doesn't leave during certain parts.
It would be easier to recycle the short stories and concepts the way the games did.

I hope it's the Silmarillion by gijoel · 2017-11-05 20:47 · Score: 3, Funny

I really enjoy shows about genealogy.

Re:I hope it's the Silmarillion by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 08:00 · Score: 0

There was Eru who in Arda was called Illuvitar, and from him came the Anure.
It really doesn't roll off the tongue like, "In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit."

Oh, please no! Let it go already. by Qbertino · 2017-11-05 21:31 · Score: 1

Please don't turn this into a perpetual reboot shitfest. The Peter Jackson versions are perfectly fine and will do for the next 100 years, thank you.

--
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca

Lotr has already been adapted on screen by Pop4President · 2017-11-05 21:50 · Score: 1

Why would you go with a story that already produced 10 hours of films when there are plenty of excellent fantasy not adapted on screen yet ? Streaming services should not imitate Hollywood and endlessly reboot the same stories and franchises. It's pathetic for Amazon to be already desperate enough for a win that they are considering this. They should buy the rights to the Malazan books or any other successful modern fantasy saga.

adventure zone by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 00:48 · Score: 0

I propose creating a TV series based on the adventure zone. Witty, plenty of action, perfectly divided in chapters already

GoT broke the mold. by CptLoRes · 2017-11-06 01:00 · Score: 1

I think a big part of why GoT is so successful is because it does not follow the classic TV series formula. It's not dumbed down, the characters all have real reasons for their actions (instead of the low hanging cheap stuff usually used to generate instant plot twists). And most importantly every action come with real consequences that are carried trough regardless of how integral the character may be. For this reason I worry about the success of a WoT series, since the story has a much more traditional story line.

Re:GoT broke the mold. by avandesande · 2017-11-06 01:23 · Score: 1

It's a lot of fun too because it breaks so many stereotypes... even fat doughy guys and dwarves can be heros!

--
love is just extroverted narcissism

Don't feed the trolls by bradley13 · 2017-11-06 01:14 · Score: 1

I think a series like this could be good fun. My only objection is paying off the Tolkein trust. The copyrights on LOTR should have expired long ago. No one now alive produced anything - this should all be in the public domain.

For that reason, i object. Don't feed the copyright trolls.

--
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.

Re: "... might not encompass all of the characters by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 01:45 · Score: 0

The prouder you are, the quicker you become corrupted. The Eagles would have taken the Ring almost immediately.

Also, Saruman had spies watching the skies, so their position would be given away.

I'll admit it should have been addressed at the Council, considering they'd addressed everything else. The "real" answer is Tolkien didn't want to bring more attention to his deus ex machina then he had to.

Tolkein Estate 21st Century Diversity Grab? by adosch · 2017-11-06 02:15 · Score: 1

I couldn't image this is far off, but attention spans are 'short' these days for entertainment. I'm not saying there's this epidemic downplay in science-fiction-fantasy literary for entertainment in this world, but if The Hobbit and LOTR don't stay relevent to today's generation and society, who the hell is going to seek it out anymore? And if it is sought out, if it's not even entertaining in the first 5 minutes, we have the ultimate ability to go binge-watch, read, skip or get something else to feed our eyes.

I see this as nothing more than Tolkein estate trying to re-re-re-re-re-re-brand something that really doesn't need re-branding, but for the sake of keeping the estate profitable and going, they have to "sell out" like this (that's a pretty strong term, but you get it). For all of us, we know these works front-and-back --- so without creating a complete shit-flop of a side story or doing fictitious day-in-the-life of a Hobbit, or spanning sub-plots between some of the duller stretches of the book(s), anything is 100% not of the original works and it's bullshit to any of us who hold foundational respect for J.R.R. Tolkein's work as the ultimate kick-starter for many of us still interested in science-fiction-fantasy.

I think if J.R.R. Tolkein were alive today, he'd certainly would have disowned the entire lineage of Tolkein estate managers and cut them loose.

Find another property please... by EnOne · 2017-11-06 02:37 · Score: 1

There are so many other good fantasy series out there why is the default always Tolkien?

--
Calvin:Do you believe in the devil? Hobbes:I'm not sure man needs the help.

Re:Find another property please... by PPH · 2017-11-06 04:28 · Score: 1

They could use "Bored of the Rings".

--
Have gnu, will travel.

So many books by vladimir.sakharuk · 2017-11-06 03:13 · Score: 1

There are so many books that could be made into epic series in short: "Wheel of time", or "The Pharaoh Contract". , why kicking dead horse again an again? We all know where it ends. Unless they say "my precious" it "The IPhone 15"

gah, how about something different? by cascadingstylesheet · 2017-11-06 03:26 · Score: 1

How about doing the Elric saga instead?

False equivalence? by wbr1 · 2017-11-06 03:33 · Score: 1

Comparing LoTR and GoT is like comparing Pornhub and Wikipedia. Sure, they are both fantasy novels (as WP and PH are both websites), but that is as far as it goes.

--
Silence is a state of mime.

Gor? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 03:44 · Score: 0

How about the Gor series by John Norman, and appeal to the pre-teen males?

Not the Tolkien Estate by Opyros · 2017-11-06 03:59 · Score: 1

Despite what the summary says, the rights are owned by Middle-earth Enterprises rather than the Tolkien estate. That is, the rights to adaptations and so forth of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, which are what JRRT sold during his lifetime.

Sean Bean? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 04:58 · Score: 0

Will Sean Bean be in this one too? It's his job to die in these series, isn't it?

This is a really, really Bad Idea by Rick+Schumann · 2017-11-06 05:08 · Score: 1

Things like this are a symptom of what's wrong with the entertainment industry: no new ideas. There's nothing to be done with a LotR weekly series; it's a complete story already, there's nothing more to be told that makes sense; it's beating a dead horse. /opinion

Please don't tell the same stories by hemna · 2017-11-06 05:10 · Score: 1

I welcome an attempt to revive the LoTR universe, but please don't retell the same stories. We already have really good movies that cover the books, and it would be a huge waste to tell the same stories in 1 hour series format. bleh. Expand on what those stories created and tell new stories with the same characters.
I'd tune in to watch that.

The Bezos delved too greedily and too deep by enjar · 2017-11-06 05:11 · Score: 1

You know what they awoke in the darkness of Khazad-dum...a monster that ate all their money and delivered a flop.

Silmarillion as Source by SeattleLawGuy · 2017-11-06 06:08 · Score: 1

All wrapped in the most boring book you'll never read.

You have obviously never read Moby Dick.

There are three problems with using the Silmarillion.

First, the lack of dialogue. It's a rich world, but you'd need a great writer to write all of the language. Hollywood is almost never successful at that if they know in advance that they want a real hit. Without more dialogue from the book to lean on, it is highly unlikely that they will do it well.

Second, the imagination. Much of the power of the book comes from things your imagination can conjure from the written word but that would be very difficult to do well on film. Making the audience hear the music of Illuvitar in the opening moments, for example, and the warring by the great enemy within the themes of the music.

Third, the built-in audience. The Silmarillion is simply not a popular property. It is beloved, but not popular, and even the average con-goer who really likes Tolkien has never read it.

--
Real lawyers write in C++

Hobbit first please! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 06:13 · Score: 0

I think the LOTR movies were actually pretty decent. I think the Hobbit was properly buggered up. I'd like to see that one done properly first this way.

really? by roc97007 · 2017-11-06 07:12 · Score: 1

"We can hear the pitch now," jokes The Verge. "It's like Game of Thrones, only with a series of books that are actually finished."

I can't help but think of all the books that have popped up in the Tolkien section after his death. He's been more prolific from the grave than L. Ron Hubbard, what with Christopher Tolkien publishing everything his dad scribbled in a liner.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.

Re:Stupid millennials by Neuroelectronic · 2017-11-06 07:37 · Score: 1

I have to agree. Hobbit was awful.

Re: "... might not encompass all of the character by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 08:46 · Score: 0

Sorry everyone, I'm talking to myself in these posts. Asking myself questions and then answering them. I'm alone, I do nothing but lick my own skin pickle and penis all day long. So I come here and ask Slashdot questions to only end up answering them myself out of pathetic loneliness.

Blizzard Take 2? by Dareth · 2017-11-06 09:45 · Score: 1

WOW movie wasn't so good. But what about a series using the Diablo franchise for a show? Got a good bit of backstory and the simple dungeon crawl aspect might be cool.

--

I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling

Tolkien. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-06 10:19 · Score: 0

As a writer, he was a great linguist.

Some animes have better story lines than Lord of the Rings.

As a language lover, I too Admire him; maybe if I read the books instead of watching the movies... my imagination could provide the missing bits, who knows?

Re: I know how the Lord of the Rings TV series end by david_thornley · 2017-11-07 09:08 · Score: 1

You mean Saruman?

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Silmarillion by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-07 21:07 · Score: 0

The Tolkien universe is vast. The book Sillmarillion tells the whole history from the beginning when the world and gods were created. The entire LOTR is briefly mentioned in ~10ish pages at the end in Silmarillion. If they make a series, I hope they choose some other story than the LOTR. If they choose to filmatize everything, there are materials for many many episodes in the Tolkien universe. One problem is that Sillmarillion is very bried, more in the style of an old history book, or the viking tales. There are not much details, not much dialogue. So the TV companies needs to fill in lot of details and create dialogue.

But that would be cool. The main antagonist in the Silmarillion is the evil god Melkor. Melkor had several lieutenants, Sauron only being one of the lesser. There was a great war of elves, men and dvarwes against Melkor. Melkor commanded legions of Balrogs and Dragons and orcs, trolls, etc. Melkor was defeated and few Balrogs and dragons survived and hid, as Sauron did. In LOTR we see _one_ Balrog, who almost destroys the entire party. Imagine battles of armies with balrogs and dragons, against elves men and dvarwes. For instance, they could filmatize the beautiful tale of Beren and Luthien.

Beren is a high born noble human, who battles Melkor (who rules all lands) together with small human bands in the mountains. After a very long hardship Beren escapes, badly wounded and broken and comes down to the forest. There he sees Luthien, the princess of a elven king fairest of all elves, dance in the moonlight and sing in a meadow. Beren falls in love and calls for her "Tinuviel" which means nightingale. She flees. But Beren is broken so he falls unconscions to the ground. Luthien stops and returns. There she falls in love and takes care of him. After a while, when Beren gets better, they return to her home. There Beren asks the high king for her hand to marry, but the elven nobles laugh at him. The elven king says, "if you can bring me a silmarrilion from Melkors crown, I will let you marry Luthien". Silmarillion is the old jewels, where the sunlight has been caught and poured into. And much of the great wars was about the sillmarillions. Beren says he will return with a Silmaril in his hand. Beren leaves the party and Luthien follows. There are many hardships. In the end, they both die. When an elf die, his soul will be reborn. But in some occasions the soul is lost forever and not reborn again. Luthien souls die and is lost to the elves. The elves mourns their loss of Luthien, fairest of the elves and can never forget humans for that. Later, Arwen, Elronds daughter is said to be Luthien reborn. But Arwen dies for Aragorn and the Elves loose her soul too. There is much pain in the Silmarillion.

And great wars. For instance, the great dragon Ancalagon the black, who is so large that he destroys an entire mountain as he is commanded by the evil god Melkor in the war against elves and men. And of course, Ungoliant, the great spider who devours several silmarils, and almost kills Melkor. But many of Melkor's Balrogs comes to rescue and drives her away. In the end, her thirst was so big Ungoliant devoured herself. Her offspring is left, for instance, Shelob, the spider monster in LOTR.

If they choose to filmatize the Tolkien world, we have many episodes. I wish HBO wrote the manus, though.

Slashdot Mirror

Amazon (and Netflix) Pursue a 'Lord of The Rings' TV Series (theverge.com)

236 comments