Hacker News Reader

Comment by atonse | Hacker News Reader

Although LOTR does have similarities to GoT (lots of characters, vast, complicated world, lots of languages, etc), how is this even taken seriously, given the Peter Jackson movies pretty much did justice to the books? (I'm assuming they did from the fan following. I never read the books)

What value would they even really add?

At least with the Game of Thrones, it was the first time it was adapted to television.

In the case of LoTR, there's already been a big budget production that won a ton of Oscars.

This seems very strange to me. Usually these studios want to try new ideas and less conservative. This smacks of a typical Hollywood studio problem, just regurgitating existing franchises into new mediums.

View on HN

You could do an anthology series of stories around but not inside the narrative of the films, taking sort of the same approach as _Rogue One_ (the only good post-first-trilogy movie) did with Star Wars.

As you say, though, an end-to-end retelling of LoTR doesn't make much sense.

I would live it if someone did a really good anthology series based on the Silmarillion. Those were some epic stories that, if told fully, could easily rival the Lord of the Rings.

I seem to remember a rumor about Jackson doing a film adaptation of Beren and Luthien but I don't know if there was any substance to it.

> given the Peter Jackson movies pretty much did justice to the books? (I'm assuming they did from the fan following. I never read the books)

They left out the "Scouring of the Shire" which was one of the key chapters of the book that illustrated the main point of the entire story.

I'm still bitter.

And completely wrecked the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, arguably the great set-piece of fantasy fiction.

I'll see your bitter, and raise you a curmudgeoning.

I am right there with you! My favorite part of the books. Although, I can understand why it was cut. It doesn't work in the context of a movie to have an epic world encompassing battle followed by a minor skirmish.

I feel like this story would be a good mini-series or standalone movie.

> My favorite part of the books.

Mine too! I also understand why it was cut, but it really ruined the movies for me.

> how is this even taken seriously, given the Peter Jackson movies pretty much did justice to the books? (I'm assuming they did from the fan following. I never read the books)

I love the books, but even I will admit they're are fairly dry with large, long-winded descriptions. Peter Jackson did a brilliant job with the movies, and I'm really not sure what could be done better or even differently (outside of a fan-fiction TV series).

He did OK, but they were overlong, inconsistent, poorly paced, full of one-dimensional characters and set-piece battle scenes with deus ex machina outcomes, and so. much. exposition. You couldn't do a better job serving the books with more editing, but you could make three better movies by getting each (with the possible exception of Fellowship, which is a strong movie that just starts a little slow) down under 100 minutes.

But that's not a problem for a TV series, which is why GoT --- despite being categorically worse source material! --- is in the aggregate stronger than the LoTR films, even if you leave out the execrable Hobbit movies.

>He did OK, but they were overlong, inconsistent, poorly paced, full of one-dimensional characters and set-piece battle scenes with deus ex machina outcomes, and so. much. exposition.

Sounds quite faithful to me. The books are plodding, most of the characters are fairly simple, and there's entire chapters that describe rolling hills and lush forests...to say nothing of the songs.

They could do something like Fargo. The TV show exists within the same fictional universe but isn't really related to the movie.

I don't know - I've never thought to myself "I've had enough Tolkien stories represented in film". I'd love to see another representation.

"I've had enough Tolkien stories represented in film"

I don't know - that was pretty much my reaction to the Hobbit movies - which were pretty dreadful. I didn't even bother seeing the 3rd one.

Ditto. The Hobbit as a book was "OK" but if it was all Tolkien ever wrote, you'd probably never have heard of him. The films were overpadded and filled with the worst of the current excess of movie CGI action sequences. Like you, I never bothered with the third.

Tolkien did, however, create a very detailed and very rich world. There's plenty of backdrop there on which to write new stories whether or not they hew to anything specific that's already been written in that universe. On the other hand, there are plenty of rich worlds that authors have built over time. And most of them don't carry the baggage and weight of expectations that anything associated with Tolkien inevitably would.

ADDED: As noted elsewhere, the rights to other Tolkien works would have to be obtained.

Haha yes, those were definitely awful. I only saw the first one and caught a little of the last one on a plane.

What I meant is I'm not tired of the Tolkien universe and would welcome more. That's not to say I enjoyed the hobbit series whatsoever. For instance, I'd love to see another director try their hand at a Hobbit series on television. At least then I could pretend the Jackson-led Hobbit series didn't exist.

For what it's worth, there are some fan cuts of the Hobbit movies that remove all the superfluous stuff and make it much closer to the book. Worth looking up.

It's really amazing that some amateurs can cut 10+ hours of film, and something like half a billion dollars worth of production costs down to three hours, with free video editing software, and that cutjob is the superior incarnation. Interesting times we live in.

Are the seasons of the TV show even in the same universe as each other?

I watched season 1 a lot closer than 2 or 3, but it doesn't seem like they are doing a much world building as they tell each tale.

Yes, they are.

I don't want to spoil anything but there are multiple characters that exist in both, though obviously younger since season 2 takes place some thirty years before season 1. Some of it is subtle but very interesting once you realize it. I don't want to hint at it more so as not to spoil it.

In effect each season stands alone, you're correct that there's not much world building.

I loved those movies, and Peter Jackson did a wonderful job operating within the constraints of the medium.

But many important things were cut from the books to make time. Tom Bombadil comes to mind. The many sorties and battles in the Two Towers were truncated.

And most importantly, as another commenter mentioned, the freeing of the Shire, which is integral to the entire premise of a hero's journey - that the hero must return to his homeland and share the hard won gifts with his community - was cut.

There's plenty in the books to warrant a series. Game of Thrones does ~9 hours per book and still had to cut characters and plot points. <2 hours per novel is pretty much always a huge compromise.

> There's plenty in the books to warrant a series. Game of Thrones does ~9 hours per book and still had to cut characters and plot points.

The books in ASOIAF are longer thsn those in LotR, there's more books, and ASOIAF books have a higher density of action vs. description. Yes, there were some elements cut from LotR in the Peter Jackson movies, so maybe you've got two short seasons of material.

I believe 95% of the reason is $$$$. The reason there's so many sequels and superhero movies in Hollywood these days is that the risk factor of a flop goes down.

I suppose this is still risky if they mess it up big time, but they've already got a built in audience of tens (hundreds?) of millions. The story has been proven (obviously), so if they do it in a slightly different way while adhering to the books perhaps it's a slam dunk, according to their research.

But do they have a built in audience? I loved both the LotR books and Peter Jackson films, I love GoT and ASoIaF, I even have Amazon Prime, I probably fit perfectly into their intended target audience but I have no desire to watch this. The Jackson adaptations left me completely satisfied, a new adaptation can only go down from there.

There was an interesting nugget in the comments under that article:

The crucial thing about this is that it is a pitch by the Tolkien estate rather than to them. Christopher Tolkien hated the Peter Jackson movies [...snip...]

I was an avid reader of Tolkien as a teenager and the movies were a disappointment to me as well. Too much spectacle and derring-do, whilst I always enjoyed the construction of the world and the inner lives & secrets of the characters. The omissions made were sometimes grotesque: the removal of Tom Bombadil alone made the mockery of the books. Skipping the entire homecoming chapter of the hero's journey ("the scouring of the shire") is a common complaint and a travesty of storytelling.

However, Christopher Tolkien is the ultimate Tolkien purist, after a lifetime of curating his father's work. In the few interviews he gives he's clearly dismayed by any deviation from the original intent. I suspect he'd likely be unhappy with any TV adaptation as well.

Like many other Tolkien fans I'd much rather see an adaptation of The Silmarillion, which if anything is the more epic book of tales.

Film(s) aren't books. It's rarely good storytelling to literally translate a book--especially a long complex one--into a film or even a series of films. It just doesn't work. Especially, a book like Return of the King that has real structural problems with multiple endings, at least one of which is buried in an Appendix.

Anyone who goes to a theater looking for a completely faithful and literal adaptation of a beloved book is almost certainly going to be disappointed.

I agree - although to be clear, my reading is this means that LOTR was simply a poor candidate for movie adaptation at all. I'm sure the financial backers disagree.

I never really understood the significance of the Bombadil interaction, except to underline how ancient a world this was, and how much more power everyone had compared to hobbits.

Would you help me understand why the scene was so important for you?

Bombadil connects the story to the future, not to the past. He is the only character whose fate remains enigmatic after the book concludes. He transcends the plot and is unaffected by the ring, unlike literally every other character, including gods. In cross-reference to his characteristics depicted in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, and to the letters of Tolkien (which contain a specific denial of Bombadil being "Iluvatar", that is, Tolkien's fictional creator) I came to the conclusion years ago that Tom Bombadil is J.R.R. Tolkien inserting himself into the story. It's quite possible this is an unintentional self-insertion, and he's certainly not an author surrogate (which is a different and much more literal class of self-appearance, like William in The Naked Lunch), but nevertheless, the cap fits.

It does say “Lord of the Rings”, but if they tackled some of the stories from “The Silmarilion” that could be pretty cool!

I'm pretty sure that Christopher Tolkien still owns the rights to The Silmarilion and has not sold off movie rights yet. That's why the hobbit movies didn't reference it. He was not a fan of the movies.

I agree. This doesn't seem wise. LOTR is vastly different from GoT in basically everything except the things you mentioned (the thing is full of Christian allegories, not constant depictions of sexual violence).

Honestly this seems like a late-to-the-party attempted at catch up.

My understanding is that LOTR is a mythology and not allegory. Any reading of allegory is in the interpretation of the reader and not the intent of the author.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/411971-i-cordially-dislike-...

The allegorical references seem rather concrete in the stories, and Tolkien's fascination with Christianity is long established (he was a devout Roman Catholic)

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2964059-letters-of-j-r...

Apparently GoT was pitched as "the Sopranos in Middle-earth".

That's basically what it is, except with less Middle Earth and more sexual violence, incest and pedophilia. At least the first couple of books are; I never bothered reading past the second book or watching the series.

Not sure why you're being downvoted. GoT very prominently displays those things.

It's because I pointed those things out. As far as I could tell GoT is primarily about feeding those pornographic desires whilst hiding behind a facade of medieval fantasy fiction.

I would have continued the series if I thought his writing were any good, in spite of the clearly repressed sexuality he was indulging himself in.

Also, half the appeal of GoT is all the gratuitous nudity, with the other half being the gratuitous violence, and the last half a semi-decent story of a bunch of unlikable assholes. How do you make the LotR universe fit that mold? It has almost no female characters, no gory battles, and the story almost completely lacks nasty assholes. Even Sauron doesn't have the nastiness inherent in most GoT characters.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com