Lord of the Rings TV series synopsis

[Mercurius]

And you just summed up the reaction to the The Hobbit movies....

Yes, although this has the potential to go a step further, given that the Hobbit was an adaptation of a Tolkien book (albeit, with liberties), while this series doesn't have much direct text to draw from. There's the Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales (which is mostly First Age, iirc), History of ME, etc.

So we're probably going to have lots of TV melodrama, titillation for GOT fans, and probably sociocultural messaging that will jar further from the Tolkien vibe.

Either way, I look forward to it, if for no other reason than that it will be high production fantasy on the screen.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Either way, I look forward to it, if for no other reason than that it will be high production fantasy on the screen.

That's how I look at it. I honestly don't care if it gets Tolkien "right" or not, as long as it's good fantasy. I see a lot of potential in this project, using a very rich setting to tell a mostly-new story. I hope they keep the fan-service to a minimum.

 

[trappedslider]

Either way, I look forward to it, if for no other reason than that it will be high production fantasy on the screen.

indeed and if there are those filthy hobbits, they will get a second breakfast

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

indeed and if there are those filthy hobbits, they will get a second breakfast

Hobbits don't exist in Middle Earth in the 2nd Age. They do not even move west and settle the Shire until midway through the 3rd Age. So if there is even one of them in this series, that will be a serious screw-up.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Waterworld was expensive garbage, but you're absolutely right about 13th Warrior. It was excellent.

The price tag is irrelevant, it’s a good movie.

 

[shawnhcorey]

I hope they keep the fan-service to a minimum.

Now you know they're going to have Cate Blanchett as Galadriel.

 

[R_J_K75]

The price tag is irrelevant, it’s a good movie.

The more I think about it I believe a lot of people (myself included) probably already had their mind made up that it was terrible before seeing it based on the extremely high budget. Just like everyone thought '94 Jurassic Park was awesome because of the groundbreaking CGI, but I don't recall it being all that great of a movie. Then again a bunch of us drank a beer ball and went to see it so my memory may be a bit cloudy on that one.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Now you know they're going to have Cate Blanchett as Galadriel.

Pretty sure that is already confirmed. Any of the Elves, except younger ones like Arwen, could be in it because they are immortal and have been around since the 1st Age.

But we can also be pretty sure there will not be any Wizards, no matter how much Ian wants to play Gandalf again, since they were not sent to Middle Earth til the 3rd Age? Of course, that is assuming that the entire series stays in the 2nd Age.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

The price tag is irrelevant, it’s a good movie.

I'm glad you liked it, but I disagree. And not just a little bit. I think it was terrible. I don't care about how much it cost - I only mentioned it because it was also very expensive, as well as being bad.

The more I think about it I believe a lot of people (myself included) probably already had their mind made up that it was terrible before seeing it based on the extremely high budget.

Why would people think that it would be terrible because it cost a lot of money? That seems backwards to me, and not how I remember it at all.

IIRC, the press leading up to it suggested that it would be amazing (at least amazing-looking) because it cost so much. At least James Cameron's Avatar, bad as the script was, was revolutionary in terms of technology and visuals, and fascinating at world-building. Water World was just expensive, and the money didn't show, even for its time.

Again, feel free to like it - I'm glad someone does.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Now you know they're going to have Cate Blanchett as Galadriel.

Well, I do love Cate. Can't really have too much Cate Blanchett.