How long before LOTR and/or The Hobbit films are remade/relaunched?

[River Boy]

Starting to wonder about this question so thought I'd put it to you all.

When ROTK was sweeping the Oscars I thought the trilogy would have classic status and probably not be remade for 100 years (presuming there hasn't been an apocalyptic war and we're no longer watching films or something).

However, 3 main developments are causing me to look at this differently.

1. Although they probably still have classic status, they've not quite dated as kindly as I imagined. At the time of heightened popularity they were rivalling the original Star Wars films for position in Top 100 films charts. However, the last one I saw (can't remember exactly) had them scattered about the Top 100 with the highest being in the 20s.

2. The book fans seem to be growing more disenchanted with the films, aided by The Hobbit films that are so clearly money-spinners and not even attempting a closeness to the book, but also a lot of aspects just haven't sat well with fans over the years, many of whom might have enjoyed the spectacle of having LOTR films but not quite developed the same affection for them.

3. Hollywood has completely discarded any shyness of remakes at all. It used to be they at least pretended to be careful where they tread but now everything seems up for production. Indeed, the word now seems to be 'Relaunch' rather than 'Remake'. God knows how many Star Wars movies are being planned and super hero franchises, like Batman, have relaunches planned before one trilogy has even ended - even though the last one was mega-successful.

What do you think? Rather than 100 years I've started to think maybe 15 or 20 years from now we'll see another LOTR production.

 

[Zoe Mackay]

I think that they're not quite the same as the recently rebooted "franchises" - more defined, more closed. However, if you look at book adaptations in general, for popular books, about once every twenty to thirty years seems fairly average.

If you take "The Great Gatsby", for example, which feels like about the right level of popularity, then it's 1926-1949-1974-2000(TV)-2013. Which is pretty much every twenty-five years. To be honest, I don't think of these as "remakes" - going back to the book and re-adapting it is a slightly different thing than just going back to the original film script.

We might see another radio/audio adaptation in the meantime - the BBC one is still one of my favourite things.

 

[paranoid marvin]

A lot of films are being remade now because people have forgotten about the originals, or because modern film wizardry (including 3d) can add something new. OR because they can tell a slightly different story. I don't think this is likely to happen with LOTR, although we may possibly see another animated movie - personally I've love to see a trilogy done in the style of Bakshi's wonderful (if flawed) animation.

 

[River Boy]

But The Great Gatsby didn't have what you'd think of as a recognised classic version, even if some were highly rated. Also LOTR has a massive fanbase and is more in the phenomena bracket, so I think it would be unprecedented if it went into production again, like remaking Star Wars or the Godfather. However, I think there is enough dissatisfaction in the fanbase as well for it to happen.

Actually expected most people to disagree about this but so far that's not the case.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

When LOTR first came out (and I loved it, but I could see its flaws), I was predicting 15 or 20 years until a remake. But that was before they decided to film The Hobbit, which throws my calculations off. Without The Hobbit, I'd be expecting a remake, maybe a TV mini-series, within the next decade. Now I don't know.

 

[paranoid marvin]

When LOTR first came out (and I loved it, but I could see its flaws), I was predicting 15 or 20 years until a remake. But that was before they decided to film The Hobbit, which throws my calculations off. Without The Hobbit, I'd be expecting a remake, maybe a TV mini-series, within the next decade. Now I don't know.

Considering the popularity of the novel(s) it's surprising we had to wait as long as we did for live-actions films. Perhaps the scope of Tolkien's vision put producers off the idea of trying to fit it into a film, or they thought the budget needed to make it wouldn't be recouped at the box office.

As I mentioned before I can't see the films being remade, as I think they are about as complete as they could be. There are only a couple of annoying things for me (Faramir being the worst). The worst offence is missing out The Scourging, as this defeats the whole point of the Hobbit's journey, but I totally understand that from a cinematic point of view this would have been hard for an audience to accept.

What we need is for HBO to do for LOTR what they did for Game of Thrones. I accept it's too similar a concept for them to show both concurrently, but when that series finishes it will leave viewers begging for more; and what better way to fulfill their wishes than to produce a show based on the series that GOT was (kind of) inspired by?

 

[Grimward]

I'm with Teresa. There are relatively few movies (Godzilla being the notable long-lasting exception, because everybody and their brother has another idea about how to portray the big guy differently, it seems) that scream to be re-done when their story/world has recently been visited by a different movie. Going with 10 - 20, and then only because the entire section about Bombadil and the Barrow Downs also remains to be told (along with The Scouring of the Shire, as Marvin points out, the most prominent exclusions in my opinion). I think Jackson could have had some significant fun with a flashback to the struggles between Cardolan, Rhudaur, Arthedain and Angmar that would have both painted the stage for the Barrow Downs (he could have even twisted things to emphasize this during the rainy day story telling; after all it DID get a LONG paragraph in that chapter! ) AND helped at least root the completely-made up Tomb section of the Desolation of Smaug in the story told by The Fellowship.

 

[BAYLOR]

When LOTR first came out (and I loved it, but I could see its flaws), I was predicting 15 or 20 years until a remake. But that was before they decided to film The Hobbit, which throws my calculations off. Without The Hobbit, I'd be expecting a remake, maybe a TV mini-series, within the next decade. Now I don't know.

25 years maybe ? but then again they rebooted spider man only a few short years after the last Toby McGuire film so anything is possible.

 

[paranoid marvin]

They'll release it again as soon as they think they can make the most cash from it. In all honesty if it does turn out to be a movie(s) rather than a tv series, it's still likely to frustrate fans of the novels by changing/missing bits out. That's why the books take weeks to read, the films just a few hours.

 

[Bick]

As soon as possible, please. Seriously, I think LOTR will take a while (20+ years) - its really big and necessarily expensive and Jackson's film's are not generally thought to have butchered the source material too badly, I think. The Hobbit though - could be within 10 years easily I think, as there will probably be someone out there who would love to make a film that's closer to the book. I'd chip in a few bucks if it would help.

 

[Boaz]

In my opinion, despite the departures from the story and the complete mismanagement of many characters, the film makers got the look right. After seeing every nook and corner of the U.S. (Monument Valley, the Badlands, Appalachia, the Great Plains, the Pacific Northwest, SoCal, NYC, the Everglades, the Rocky Mountains, etc...) done to death in American films, viewing the unexpectedly pristine and wondrous beauty of New Zealand blew me away. And it was not photoshopped as far as I know... it was real!!! Stunning. Fantabulous. Phenomenal. I think that is a strong statement for the success of these movies and a bar which future remakes must at least equal.

The costume, makeup, and carpenters for the movies also recieve top marks from me. They completed the human (and elven, hobbit, and dwarven) element of the visual. Excellent work all around.

I've said it before... and I'll say it again... If I'd never read Tolkien, these would be my favorite movies I'd ever seen. What George Lucas did for me, when I was eleven, changed my perception of movies and storytelling. If I'd never read Tolkien, then I believe that Peter Jackson would have had that same degree of impact upon me when I was thirty-five.

But not only had I read Tolkien, I'd read the trilogy thirty times. The movies were not made for me.

I think they succeeded overwhelmingly with the target audience... those who'd casually read Tolkien years ago, those who heard bedtime stories, and those who never even heard the names Frodo, Sauron, and Galadriel before they bought their ticket and popcorn.

Why remake the trilogy? The visuals are remarkable and the story holds up for the casual readers and the fantasy challenged.

As River Boy pointed out, a remake could be made to target the hardcore fans. But that's too small of a market.... and the film makers would never satisfy all the die hard Middle-earth fans. We'd argue among ourselves whether Gildor, Nob, and Ioreth should or should not be given dialogue. We'd argue about the necessity of using proper names Khazad-dum instead of Moria, the Dunedain instead of Numenoreans, and Amon Sul instead of Weathertop. We'd argue over a need for extended interactive appendices for the dvds... everyone needs to know that Banazir Galbasi lived from Third Age 2980 to Fourth Age 61 instead of going by the Shire Reckoning (1380-1480). And that would undoubtedly bore the rest of humanity to tears.

All that being said, I say it's remade in a bit over a generation... 25-30 years.

 

[Grimward]

*Grins evilly*

Is it Galbasi, or Galpsi, Bo?

OK, shutting up now...

 

[River Boy]

As River Boy pointed out, a remake could be made to target the hardcore fans. But that's too small of a market.... and the film makers would never satisfy all the die hard Middle-earth fans. We'd argue among ourselves whether Gildor, Nob, and Ioreth should or should not be given dialogue. We'd argue about the necessity of using proper names Khazad-dum instead of Moria, the Dunedain instead of Numenoreans, and Amon Sul instead of Weathertop. We'd argue over a need for extended interactive appendices for the dvds... everyone needs to know that Banazir Galbasi lived from Third Age 2980 to Fourth Age 61 instead of going by the Shire Reckoning (1380-1480). And that would undoubtedly bore the rest of humanity to tears.

I'd rather argue for a version that maintained the storytelling and character integrity of the books, rather than worrying about the nitty-gritty language based stuff or minor characters. That could potentially do just as well, even if not as commercial - The Matrix came out the same summer as The Phantom Menace, there's no contest over which one was better even though I'm guessing Star Wars earned more money. Also it might be the difference between the films becoming timeless classics as opposed to ones that are only remembered as blockbusters of their day - for me that should be the ultimate test; if you want to turn a timeless book into a film then the film only succeeds if that too is equally timeless.

Jackson's achieved a lot with massive and complex productions, made lots of money and lifted awards, but I think this is the crucial factor that has eluded him.

 

[Boaz]

Grimmy, it's been years since I really studied... but isn't Galpsi a debasement of Galbasi... such as Coward from Cowherd or Llwyd to Lloyd.

 

[Grimward]

Grimmy, it's been years since I really studied... but isn't Galpsi a debasement of Galbasi... such as Coward from Cowherd or Llwyd to Lloyd.

It is indeed. I was playing off (and therefore, underscoring, or at least that was the intent) your point that we hardcore Tolkien fans would argue over the need for interactive appendices for relatively meaningless trivia points on the discs. Apparently, my performance leaves something to be desired...

Seriously, though, I have to agree; the purist market is way to small for any serious remake to cater to.

 

[Mirannan]

The most glaring omissions from the book, in the movies, are the omission of the entire Old Forest/Tom Bombadil/barrow-wights sequence from the movies and, even worse, the omission of the Scouring of the Shire - which, among other things, illustrates just how much the hobbits have changed since they left.

OTOH, an echo of the Old Forest is found much later on in the movie sequence because the bit about the hobbits being swallowed by a tree is lifted in its entirety from near the beginning to just before they meet Treebeard - who takes on the job of rescuing them as well. (In the extended edition on DVD, anyway.)

One might argue that missing out those parts was necessary because the movies were too long already. Fine. Remove at least half of the battle sequences, then; Tolkein would have hated the glorying in slaughter.

 

[River Boy]

The most glaring omissions from the book, in the movies, are the omission of the entire Old Forest/Tom Bombadil/barrow-wights sequence from the movies and, even worse, the omission of the Scouring of the Shire - which, among other things, illustrates just how much the hobbits have changed since they left.

OTOH, an echo of the Old Forest is found much later on in the movie sequence because the bit about the hobbits being swallowed by a tree is lifted in its entirety from near the beginning to just before they meet Treebeard - who takes on the job of rescuing them as well. (In the extended edition on DVD, anyway.)

One might argue that missing out those parts was necessary because the movies were too long already. Fine. Remove at least half of the battle sequences, then; Tolkein would have hated the glorying in slaughter.

I always miss the grey wolves after the descent from Caradhras, I think that would make a great action scene in a film but neither film version has gone for it. Gandalf actually uses some typical wizard-like magic, which a lot of people complain he never does.

Difficult to imagine how to play Tom Bombadil, but would have loved the Barrow Downs as a proper spooky scene - though don't think Jackson knows how to do spooky, if The Frighteners is anything to go by.

Action scenes do go on too long and I understand the new Hobbit film is one long battle. Great! looking forward to seeing Thorin combating 250 goblins in one go. Strange that Jackson began TLOTR by telling his crew to imagine Middle Earth existed and we're going to film a true story where it once was. Everything was supposed to be down-to-earth and raw, even though the novel is considered fantasy - at what point did he change his mind?

 

[spacepilotsshow]

I don't think they'll be remade. Remakes are a fad of today's era of filmmaking (not all bad, but we'll look back on this time and laugh at how many there are)

 

[spacepilotsshow]

25 years maybe ? but then again they rebooted spider man only a few short years after the last Toby McGuire film so anything is possible.

They rebooted spider-man because they couldn't make a sequel, but they didn't want to lose the rights.

 

[Boaz]

I respectfully disagree that it is just a fad.

Western Civilization has been rehashing the same stories for thousands of years. And just when we seem to have completely forgotten, someone will resurrect an old story. Rome redid the Greek stories. Christians redid the Hebrew stories. The Renaissance writers and artists redid the stories from antiquity... ditto the Enlightenment. The Elizabethans redid everything just as we are doing now.

How many remakes of A Christmas Carol have been made? Lots. Plus there are other stories slightly changed... It's a Wonderful Life is a retelling of A Christmas Carol. How about Mr. Holland's Opus? Scrooged. An American Carol. I'm sure Lifetime, Hallmark, Oxygen, and even ESPN have made their own versions.

Romeo and Juliet has been a staple of film since the beginning and I doubt it'll ever stop. Romeo and Juliet (1916). Cukor's Romeo and Juliet (1936). Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet. Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet. Castellani's Romeo and Juliet. Romeo and Juliet (DiCaprio and Danes). West Side Story. Romanoff and Juliet. Love is All There Is. Romeo Must Die. Shakespeare in Love. Dirty Dancing. Titanic. The Lion King 2. Tromeo and Juliet. Basilisk. Chicken Rice War. The Notebook. Romeo and Juliet: Sealed With a Kiss. Gnomeo and Juliet. I'm sure there are many more.

I'm not arguing this is necessary or good. I'm just saying it's not a fad.

But hopefully the craze of remaking seventies tv shows into feature films is never coming back!