if LOTR does HUGE in the box office, do you think...

[oranthal]

...that they are going to make a cheap knock off animated fantasy series with poor script, VA, and animation in hopes of trying to cash in on the LOTR hype?

[Calhoun07]

Oh, somebody might try doing that even if it's not a huge success.

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

SAID BY CALHOUN07: Oh, somebody might try doing that even if it's not a huge success.

Nah....remember Osmosis Jones? It's REALLY doubtful if they pull out the series now since it did horrible in the box-office...so I say no to the question, it simply may not be profitable for a series if the movie does poorly.

[Joe Tully]

I hope not. I also hope Chris Tolkien wouldn't approve any such thing. But they could try to do some knock-off thats similar but not so similar that they could be sued.

I am hoping that it will do well enough for them to decide to do The Hobbit as a prequel a la Star Wars. It should do well, it has a huge fan base already, so if it fails it's totally their fault.

[Bird Boy]

there was a cartoon of "The Hobbit". I've never seen it, but it's official.

LOTR better be huge..it's a 3 hour movie, and the budget on it is HUGE.....if it sucks..then New Line Cinema is gonna go down in the movie business BIG TIME...

and I highly doubt any cartoon series will be spawned off of it...

-BB

[Jowy Blight]

You never know, BirdBoy. I never thought that a "The Mummy" series would be made but, well you know.......

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

Eh, but the Mummy was a succesful film, which is why ut got the seires....but othr than that, I gotta agree with Jowy and ask why it's such a stupid idea...but stranger things have made it onto TV. Like Guiness World's Records...AKA FREAK SHOW!!:cool:

[Bird Boy]

Originally posted by Jowy Blight
You never know, BirdBoy. I never thought that a "The Mummy" series would be made but, well you know.......

Yeah..but..LOTR has as many fans as Star Wars does (believe me..that is true). LOTR is, I think, to be taken serious. There should NOT be any more books. It's fine the way it is. It doesn't need to be added too. Let the Hobbits live in peace.

There doesn't need to be anything done to the LOTR series cept for the movies to be released. I haven't read the last book, but I know the first 2 would make great movies (despite how boring I thought the books were). I doubt if Chris Tolkien would let somthing like that happen.

-BB

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

I thought all the books were pretty exciting...

A notable lack of any recurring female presence in the LOTR series, however.

[Jowy Blight]

It's fine the way it is. It doesn't need to be added too. Let the Hobbits live in peace.

Yeah, I know. I thought the books were wonderful myself, I just hate it when they add on to storys that were finished because of a movie. As for the movie itself, I just hope the movie doesn't do things the book didn't do or that were not there to begin with. *coughbattlefieldearthcough*

[Joe Tully]

I think you're right, Bird Boy, about LOTR being as popular as Star Wars, and that it should be taken seriously. But I kind of wonder...Star Wars had those Droids and Ewoks cartoons follow them up, as well as the infamous Star Wars Christmas Special with Chewbacca's family. And the live action Ewok specials with those kids. I really hope the same thing doesn't happen with LOTR. That Star Wars stuff was all in the 80s, so hopefully people have learned since then that those knockoffs weren't a good idea. But for them to have made so many, they must have made quite a bit of money, and to them TV folks, money is #1. I will be shocked if the movies do well and there is no attempt to capitalize on it at all, even if it isn't using anything that Tolkien has rights to. For example, they could do something with random elves, dwarves, orcs, etc. and Tolkien wouldn't have any control over it because it wouldn't have any of his dad's characters.

I am a big fan of the books, though I only read them once a few years back, but I'll be pretty ticked if they mess with the storyline.

I own the cartoon Hobbit, but I think they could make a live version anyways. There are already 2 versions of LOTR out there in cartoon form, though Bakshi's just tells the first half or so (if memory serves) and the Rankin-Bass one covers the last third. Both of these are around A LOT lately, probably because the owners are trying to capitalize on the upcoming hype and popularity.

[James Harvey]

LOTR will be a hit. Why? The website has already gotten 400 million individual hits. This movie, I think, will gross at least $300 million. Aside from SPIDER-MAN, I've seen no other movie with so much hype surrounding it.

[Maxie Zeus]

Ah, but you're all forgetting the real "prequel." There's no way that this could ever be made into a movie (there's material enough in it for about 10 different trilogies, at least), but it could serve as a sourcebook for an "authentic and official" cartoon series, particularly if done less as a series of separate stories than as one enormous multi-part story.

The great problem would be the fact that the networks and studio would want to insert hobbits into it. . . . :mad:

[Joe Tully]

Yeah, I actually remembered Silmarillion, but never was able to get very far into it before getting bored and putting it down. And like you say, I don't think it would work well as a movie. J.R.R. Tolkien didn't want it to be published since he thought that it was something that the public wouldn't like, it was more something that he wrote for his own enjoyment. When it was released, I don't think it was received well outside of the real hardcore Tolkien fanatics.

Your idea might work out okay though, Maxie, if they just released it in segments on T.V.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by Joe Tully
Yeah, I actually remembered Silmarillion, but never was able to get very far into it before getting bored and putting it down. And like you say, I don't think it would work well as a movie. J.R.R. Tolkien didn't want it to be published since he thought that it was something that the public wouldn't like, it was more something that he wrote for his own enjoyment. When it was released, I don't think it was received well outside of the real hardcore Tolkien fanatics.

Actually, I believe he very much wanted to see it published. I know that after "The Hobbit" was a hit, he pitched Silm to his publishers, and they declined it. And when he finished LOTR, he actually tried shopping it to another publisher because he thought they would take Silm with it.

The problem is that the never got it finished or ironed out to his own satisfaction; that's why it only came out posthumously.

I only read Silm all the way thru only once, and only occasionally dip back into it. It's hard going and would be very difficult to translate into a series. Beyond the "hobbit" issue, the temptation to treat it on a par with Thundercats or He-Man would be very great. Presentation-wise, it would have to look much more like a Shakespearean adaptation (all flashing movements and high-caliber dialogue) than the muscled-up superheroes with one-syllable vocabularies the networks would be looking for.

Hmmm. I wonder what Timm is doing after JL?

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus




Hmmm. I wonder what Timm is doing after JL?

Reunite the creative staff behind "Gargoyles" and run with it...they've proven that their greatest strength is doing fantasy literature...

[The Mad Hatter]

I doubt we'll get a LOTR animated series. Tolkien's estate is pretty tight-fisted with the use of the material. In fact, this tight-fistedness is why the Miramax-made movies are being distributed by Tri Star. Tolkein made a decree while he was alive that Disney should never have anything to do with his material. Miramax is owned by Disney, and the estate objected when things were already under way.

With that kind of tenacity, I doubt they'll let some crap studio muck up his work.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Originally posted by The Mad Hatter
[B]I doubt we'll get a LOTR animated series. Tolkien's estate is pretty tight-fisted with the use of the material. In fact, this tight-fistedness is why the Miramax-made movies are being distributed by Tri Star. Tolkein made a decree while he was alive that Disney should never have anything to do with his material. [B]

Smart man. Sorry, as much as I like Walt, he had a reputation for screwing over material for his own vision...

Though this might belong in the Lewis Carroll thread--

It's too bad that the Disney Alice in Wonderland was made in the 1950s-60s. I do think the books lend themselves well to animation, but the Disney version glanced over and rearranged many scenes to fit the 80 minute time limit. It also appeared at a time when Disney songs were at their peak, so there was a song every ten minutes, rather than more of the amusing dialogue it could have had.

On the other hand, in the 50s, they had some of the best animators and artists of all time, and in my opinion, the best key character designer Disney ever had. I wouldn't like to see Alice as drawn by some of the more modern animators...

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by The Mad Hatter
the Miramax-made movies are being distributed by Tri Star.

:confused: Is this a reference to the forthcoming films, or to something else? Cuz the Jackson films are being distributed by New Line, though I seem to recall that Miramax WAS involved somehow.:confused:

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by Leaping Larry Jojo Smart man. Sorry, as much as I like Walt, he had a reputation for screwing over material for his own vision...

Uh huh. Well, one only has to look at "Beauty and the Beast" and how they turned the moral vision of the original fairy tale completely upside down to see the same tendency at work in the contemporary studio, too.

But that's a whole 'nother rant o' mine so maybe I should just shut up. :rolleyes:

[Joe Tully]

I guess we're both right on Silm, Maxie. Sorry for my incredibly anal habit of looking up minor points of dispute, but...

The Tolkien FAQ at http://home.uchicago.edu/~sbjensen/Tolkien/TLFAQ/TolkienME.html#Silm

lists this


Why did Tolkien fail to publish The Silmarillion during the eighteen years which followed the publication of The Lord of the Rings?
No definitive answer is possible, but a several serious obstacles can be listed. They included:

a. Technical difficulties. Tolkien's unmethodical habits of revision had made the manuscripts chaotic; it seemed impossible to make everything consistent. Characters introduced in LotR had to be worked in. Beyond these detailed questions, he contemplated many alterations, even to fundamental features of his mythology.

b. The problem of depth. In LotR, his references to the older legends of the First Age helped produce the strong sense of historical reality. In the Silmarillion, which told the legends themselves, this method wouldn't be available.

c. The problem of presentation. LotR had been basically novelistic, presenting the story sequentially from one character or another's point of view. But the Silmarillion was and was meant to be a bundle of tales which had more in common with the ancient legends he studied than with LotR. He feared that if he presented it as an annotated study of ancient manuscripts that probably many readers would have difficulty enjoying the tales as stories.

d. No Hobbits. He feared (correctly) that many people expected another Lord of the Rings, which the Silmarillion could never be.



I think that I must've read this before a few years back and just decided to remember part d. ;) Still, as you were saying, the fact that he did bother to go through and change it shows that he did want it to be published eventually, just in whatever final form he thought was best.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by Joe Tully
I guess we're both right on Silm, Maxie. Sorry for my incredibly anal habit of looking up minor points of dispute, but...

Hey, it's a great habit! And thanks for the quoted material.:D

I knew from the "Letters" that he desperately wanted Silm to see the light of day; but when his publishers were finally willing (after the phenomenal success of LotR) I guess he discovered that technically and aesthetically it probably wouldn't be possible to have it turn out as he would like.

It had to have sucked to have that realization, after all those years of dreaming. . . .:(

[The Mad Hatter]

D'aah, I knew it was New Line, I really did. This is what happens when you rely on memory and don't look things up.

Anyway, if any of you are curious about the whole Miramax finagling that went on, check out the listing for Lord of the Rings over on www.corona.bc.ca/films/main.html .

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by The Mad Hatter
D'aah, I knew it was New Line, I really did. This is what happens when you rely on memory and don't look things up.

Anyway, if any of you are curious about the whole Miramax finagling that went on, check out the listing for Lord of the Rings over on www.corona.bc.ca/films/main.html .

Ah. I was pretty sure that's what you meant, but being a Tolkien fanatic my ears pricked up at the noise, perhaps, of "other" Tolkien films in the work. I wanted to be certain about what was up.

[Lachesis]

Did the Gest of Beren and Luthien take place during the Silmarillion? I always thought that one stood a chance of making it to the screen intact.

I never made it very far into that book either. . .

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by Lachesis
Did the Gest of Beren and Luthien take place during the Silmarillion? I always thought that one stood a chance of making it to the screen intact.

I never made it very far into that book either. . .

Well, when I call myself a "fanatic" perhaps I should just say that I really really like Tolkien. But I'm not alt.fan.tolkien material. :p

I know that the story of Beren and Luthien gets recounted in the Silmarillion, but I don't know where else in what unpublished fragments it also shows up.

[Lachesis]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus


Well, when I call myself a "fanatic" perhaps I should just say that I really really like Tolkien. But I'm not alt.fan.tolkien material. :p

I know that the story of Beren and Luthien gets recounted in the Silmarillion, but I don't know where else in what unpublished fragments it also shows up.

Well, neither am I really. The only reason I know about the story is because one of my aunts got me four volumes of Tolkien's unpublished works a few Christmases ago, most of which I found unbearably dull and not near as fun as the Hobbit or Lord of the Rings. The unfinished Beren and Luthien poem was in the third one, The Lays of Beleriand, which was the only volume I really did enjoy.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by Lachesis


Well, neither am I really. The only reason I know about the story is because one of my aunts got me four volumes of Tolkien's unpublished works a few Christmases ago, most of which I found unbearably dull and not near as fun as the Hobbit or Lord of the Rings. The unfinished Beren and Luthien poem was in the third one, The Lays of Beleriand, which was the only volume I really did enjoy.

That's pretty much my reaction, too. It has great archival interest, and is clearly the sort of thing a philologist or historian of literature/myth would love (and that's what Tolkien was, so that's what he wrote), but most of it struck me as pretty tedious.

[Failure]

Originally posted by The Mad Hatter
I doubt we'll get a LOTR animated series. Tolkien's estate is pretty tight-fisted with the use of the material. In fact, this tight-fistedness is why the Miramax-made movies are being distributed by Tri Star. Tolkein made a decree while he was alive that Disney should never have anything to do with his material. Miramax is owned by Disney, and the estate objected when things were already under way.

With that kind of tenacity, I doubt they'll let some crap studio muck up his work.

But wasn't it Disney that realised the cartoon versions of the Hobbit and Lord of The Rings? (ironically, i saw both at a Costco a couple of weeks ago, i was pretty surprised)

[Joe Tully]

Nope. They were done by Rankin-Bass, the same folks that did all of the Rudolph the Reindeer christmas specials.