Well, I guess one positive is they could dispel the idea that Sauron was just a flaming eyeball at the end of the Third Age. He’d physically reincarnated by then and Gollum saw him during his torture (with 9 fingers). We saw attractive Sauron in RoP, now we can see ugly Sauron
I just don't understand why this, of all the options they had available, was the story they decided to tell. There are so many incredible stories to tell from the world of Middle-Earth, even within the relatively limited scope of what they have rights for. But this? What on earth are they going to make up and cram into this film to justify making a complete narrative out of it? This is going to make The Hobbit trilogy look like an incredibly faithful adaptation by comparison.
The sole reason is Andy Serkis' ego, wanting to reprise his most famous role. If they did anything else with the franchise, they wouldn't have Gollum in it. Which he cannot allow.
Great analysis, and I agree with pretty much everything. I hope the story is not centered only on Gollum, but rather swinging back and forth between him and 'the hunter', which ideally would be a new character.
I like the idea that the hunt for Gollum could be like the 24 of epic fantasy films, where it's a manhunt with all these different factions trying to figure out where he his and Gandalf going all Jack Bower on middle earth. It's scope would exceed the text but there is ample ground to tell an interesting story. That whole conversation that Gandalf has with Frodo in moria would actually have a better basis because Gandalf literally would have personally been in Bilbo's position himself and asking himself "are we the bad guys?"
Ultimately I think the only thing I really want (well, NEED) to see in this is the same balance between love and respect for the source material and innovative imagination that was present throughout the production of the main trilogy. Ultimately the world of the films FEELS different and yet the same to the books because it IS different and yet the same. There is a particular interview in which Tolkien refers to middle earth as "the world in a different place of the imagination" or something similar. I feel like that's the spirit of Tolkien in a single sentence. The original films succeeded, in my eyes, because the team behind them understood how to carefully allow the books to blend with their current state of reimagining the world. Aside from that, I would like to see more exploration of the themes of Beren and Luthien explored in the relationship between Aragorn and the Lady Arwen, particularly if they keep to Aragorn's character at this time being reluctant to assume kingship. I would also be very curious to see just what state Gollum is in immediately after "escape" from Barad Dur. There is a scene in the books, just before Sam wakes up and chastises Gollum, wherein Tolkien describes the green light fading from Smeagol's eyes as he looks like the most ancient hobbit ever seen. It would lack the significance of the scenario but I would still like to see that image visually represented on screen. Cheers to another excellent video!
Man, you hit the nail in the head! I'm concerned about the Gollum film as well for many different reasons. You, however, broke it down perfectly. What is Gollum without Frodo if - for me - Gollum's very purpose in TLOTR is to raise the stakes in Frodo's own quest? Throughout the story, Frodo is confronted on two fronts. First, with the utter destruction of everything good seeing in the mirror of Galadriel. And second with the destruction of the self, meaning, what Frodo would become should he claim the One-Ring for himself which is reflected in the creature Gollum. Why separate a great character - Gollum - from his wonderful service to the story is beyond me.
your insights on Gollum as a foil really makes it difficult to see how they could create a story really worth telling here. But i'm hoping for the best.
A miniseries adaptation of Children of Hurin has the potential to be incredible, but they’d probably jam wizards and hobbits into the story and ruin it for no other reason except casual audiences expecting them to be there.
I have serious doubts about this project. A prequel with characters that appear later is natural plot armour. It is hard to suspend disbelief in real peril. I don't know if we need to see Gollum's fall much more beyond what we have already seen.
I have every faith in this writing team. I believe they're capable of writing an intriguing story set within the time frame available. Much like Stoppard did with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead. It might not be Tolkien's story but, hopefully, it will mirror his world.
I can't say I'm especially excited to see this new film from the director of Venom: There Will Be Carnage. I'm more intrigued by the second, unspecified film they've announced, though that will also live or die by its concept. Personally, ever since I saw Crimes of the Future, I've been hoping they would make a King Elessar film so that Viggo can reprise the role as his real age - House of the Dragon in Gondor, if you like. Tolkien wrote an opening chapter for a thriller novel about a dark cult plaguing Minas Tirith during the reign of Aragorn's son - if you fudge that a little, you could have it happen during Aragorn's reign instead, and even include Gimli, Legolas, Merry and Pippin. The appendices say that Merry and Pippin remained close with Aragorn, and eventually moved to Gondor, where they were ultimately buried alongside him, so this approach would seem to solve the problem that led Tolkien to abandon The New Shadow (that it was depressing and uninteresting because it lacked hobbits). Getting the five remaining members of the Fellowship back together for one final adventure seems like it could be a worthy epilogue. I don't think I'd trust the writers of War of the Rohirrim to realise it, though.
For my two cents - first there is the issue of chronology i.e. how will the existence of these two films affect the viewing experience of the existing movies. There's nothing worse than the idea of a film that takes place "between" two scenes of an existing film and fundamentally turns an opportunity for storytelling into nothing more than "fill in the backstory" content that has basically destroyed things like the STAR WARS universe and the HARRY POTTER films (even if they hadn't already been destroyed by the former's fans and the latter's author). On the flip side, the other issue is the filmmakers. On the plus side, Jackson, Walsh and Boyens have phenomenally good taste in material. That has never been an issue, especially when it comes to Middle Earth -- they classed up THE HOBBIT to a level that most people doubted was possible. But on the other hand Jackson - in particular - got involved with THE HOBBIT for financial reasons as a kind of payback against Warners Hollywood accounting that he and many other participants suffered from the LORD OF THE RINGS. Likewise, Jackson adapted KING KONG for Universal for the exact same reason; payback for killing the project back in 1996 by blowing the 2005 version up to such a massive scale that it provided years of income for his many NZ-based film businesses (such as the WETA Workshop and and WETA Digital). It is arguable that KONG, despite having some powerful moments and great writing, was bloated and tonally insane and unwieldy because it was in Jackson's best interests for it to be (alongside the huge paycheque he took home and a share of the gross profits instead of the net income!). The choice to make THE HOBBIT into a trilogy was forced on them by Warners and Jackson happily complied. The choice of creating Tauriel was forced on them by Warners and Jackson complied. The scale and length of the action sequences in the BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES was partially mandated by Warners for Jackson to "out do" LORTR. I do honestly feel, as a New Zealander who works in the film industry and has worked with many of Jackson's colleagues, that if Jackson can sacrifice story integrity for capitalistic gain then he will take it - especially as he's spent the last almost ten years focusing on being a real estate mogul and a venture capitalist than a filmmaker. His decision to create of these two new films are proof of that. And my worry is how far will he allow the storytelling to suffer for another portion of the gross percentage and adding another decade of sustenance to his local NZ businesses. And yet - having said all of that - Jackson, Walsh and Boyens have great taste and creative instincts. Boyens writing in THE WAR OF THE ROHIRRIM is great. The trio's writing in MORTAL ENGINES also had great choices and solid bones. The failure of Jackson's films like KONG, THE LOVELY BONES and the weak sections of THE HOBBIT TRILOGY (and even MORTAL ENGINES) are an issue of brevity. Having worked with Jackson's editors and his LOTR producers, the most common demand in the editing room was "less is more" and for Jackson to kill his darlings for the sake of a film that has pace and sustained suspension of disbelief. These people who worked with him on LOTR were gone by the time THE LOVELY BONES was made and had no input on THE HOBBIT whatsoever; making me think that a vital part of the storytelling process has been missing in that creative team for almost a decade now. And yet, again, KONG and THE LOVELY BONES and THE HOBBIT TRILOGY and MORTAL ENGINES have (IMHO) very few genuinely "awful ideas" that originate from them and really only the namedrop of Aragorn in the third HOBBIT film felt cynical and totally creatively bankrupt out of all three of his prequel films. So I really genuinely feel how torn you are -- the Wingnut Films camp are creatively very clever people and they have great taste. I feel like they will find a cool, fascinating and unexpected way to make the HUNT FOR GOLLUM films feel "legit" just like they made the opening of THE DESOLATION OF SMAUG with Thorin and Gandalf at The Prancing Pony feel legit. It will look and sound and feel like Jackson's Middle Earth and that place is full of 95-98% amazing creative ideas (whether they're adapting Tolkien's prose or not). And we can be assured that if these two films are made here in New Zealand, they will look absolutely amazing. I just worry that the economics of why these films are being made will simply compromise it and we'll get more Tauriels and "Seek out the ranger named Strider" and so forth. But there is also another silver lining; with Jackson not directing we most certainly will not be drowning in 45 minute long battle sequences or Brontosaurus chases etc....or at least that will be my hope. But of course, having said all of that, with Jackson not directing and cinematographer Andrew Lesnie tragically passed on, perhaps Serkis's version of Middle Earth will feel very different...and that might be for the worse rather than the better?
I am concerned with shoehorning actors who are 25 years older than they were in the original films into a new film where they are supposed to be (at least) a few months younger than they were, and in the case of early Smeagol, well that's hard to say, at any rate younger than he was in the flashback where he killed his cousin/best friend. Are they going to resort to CGI effects to soften the facial aging that has happened? Another point: I think Gollum is not such a good fit for a Frankenstein-monster sort of treatment, because the monster was only visually a monster, he was very very scary to look at but he was not evil per se, he was entirely a victim of the Doctor who made him with a simple brain in a huge body. Gollum, who was a sort of Hobbit after all, fell instantly under the spell of the ring and immediately murdered to get it. So he wasn't some random innocent victim, he must have been in some sense ready to become a Gollum before the ring. Anyway, I guess my biggest fear in this huge enlargement of a small side story, is that the secondary side stories will get concomitantly larger as well, until it becomes 2 hours of fluff with maybe 30 minutes of meat. We'll have Aragorn and Arwen in mismatched love, Smeagol being a misunderstood teen, and a chance meeting between Deagol and Bullroarer Took. Or the like. My default is not to see it, but if the word of mouth is good, then I probably will.
I think you're ultimately correct that they could possibly tell a good story, but they will not be able to tell a Tolkien story. Which leads usto the question - why bother telling it at all? The answer is obvious, and is why I'm not optimistic that they will tell a good original story. I'm aware of the rights issues, but I desperately wish we could get a new trilogy of the three primary First Age stories. They are the only true Tolkien stories left to be adapted.
One of my concerns is how this movie will look. When I first heard about it, I hoped it would be animated, with the returning cast (Andy Serkis, Viggo Mortensen, Ian McKellen, etc) doing voice work for their characters. With live action comes de-aging effects, and with de-aging comes the potential for some pretty uncanny looking characters...
We already got four movies with this monkey. Which is three more than I would have needed. There is nothing left to discover about this character. This will be a solely ego-driven cash grab. In fact, they were so out of ideas, the only thing they hadn't done with gollum yet was that "Hunt for Gollum" fan film from 2009 which they then just trademarketed and sued those exact fans for.
when I first heard about this movie, it was in the context of Viggo Mortensen getting involved to play Aragorn. I was imagining that it would really be his movie, then, and barely about Gollum at all except as an antagonist. Bringing Aragorn back is probably pointless, too, but he could have some kind of arc or meaningful relationship to explore. I don't know what there could be to do with Gollum that we haven't already seen. Attempts to explore Gollum as a standalone character do not have a great track record so far....
I enjoyed your discussion of Golum as a protagonist and his character. I think you could have easily spoken longer. It is interesting to think of it in terms of the range of any potential character arc/growth. I'm sceptical of this trend now in movies to 'humanise' villains such that they become sympathetic characters (a la Elpheba, Cruella, etc). In fairness, Golum was humanised well in the LotR trilogy already so it doesn't quite apply here. A better example might be Jack Sparrow's standalone film. The character works as a secondary, comic relief character in Will Turner's story, but as the protagonist, is too much and too shallow. I worry that's the case....Golum works as a mirror and foil for Bilbo/Frodo.
heck yeah we do I'm interested to see how Andy Serkis does essentially directing himself. These sorts of things can either go really well or turn into a weird, vaguely off-putting vanity project. And Andy hasn't shown much more than general competence as a director so far, though I think the material he had and external factors of those productions account for a lot of that. His portrayal of Gollum was genius and if that inspiration translates to the screen with this project it should be something to see. Fran Walsh and Philipa Boyens really do have their work cut out for them though.
While there’s the possibility this could be a worthwhile story here, as we’ve seen with rings of power, there’s a lot that can wrong and it could end up damaging the world of Tolkien. I personally don’t have a lot of faith that this will be very good.
Let's hope that they use the vast vistas of Middle-Earth as David Lean uses the desert in Lawrence of Arabia, i.e. as a "living" part of the narrative. It could make a relatevely simple story into a grand epic story. Think about the spagetti westerns: You are reslly not sure if you're watching a good guy or a bad guy, but still you wonder what the hell is going to happen next!!
MY MAN how do you write videos on the best things?? You started with LOTR, star wars, FINAL FANTASY VII??? [and more lotr too!] Those are like the best things all in one channel! also if you've more talk of Final Fantasy in particular [or anime] that would be amazing, there's at least one dude right here happy for one
And after your video, my first thought is pretty much the same. But let me elaborate. I think one of the most powerful ways of telling a fantasy story, is actually not telling. Maybe we could call that "the art of not telling". If is in the name of the genre: "fantasy". I don't appreciate it when film studios try to feed every last bit to the audience, taking away their every need of fantasizing or deep thought. I am not expecting much from this. I might be wrong though, and I hope I am.
it is hard to see this really being any good. The LOTR is a classic and well loved story and I think when they made they film it was a cumulation of years of being in love with the material and wanting to do it right. Everything since doesn't and can't have the same level of reverence. When you're life's work is to tell one story so well everything else is an after thought. This Gollum story will be written essentially from scratch for the purpose of making this film. It is not possible to care as deeply about it as when they made LOTR.
there is a way for the Hunt for Gollum to be done really well - but I don't understand why that was the most compelling story available. Why not make movies out of the wider legendarium? why not tap the Silmarillion or Unfinished tales for potential movies? Beren and Luthien, Children of Hurin, Feanor and Fingolfin and the other Noldor and Eldar - there is just so much material.
It makes me so sad that the movie studios are cynical and in control of these beautiful stories at the same time. They need to give more control to the artists.
I honestly am not interested at alllllllll. Firstly after the Hobbit I don't have faith in the creative team to not fkk up again, and secondly..... I just don't care about having this narrative produced as films.
I just saw war of the Rohirrim, at least Hera didn't crush on Sauron like a certain married elf is doing in another show that shall not be named. So they want to turn a pretty poor video game into a movie? Okay then
Tolkien fans: what do you want (or NOT want) to see in this new Lord Of The Rings movie?
I'm hoping this will be a labour of love dedicated to preserving the legacy of the greatest fantasy story ever told.
Ten minute long, surreal, Singing in the Rain style, dance sequence.
This film is a bad idea.
I want to see *EVERY* identity represented, and an AI-written script.
Well, I guess one positive is they could dispel the idea that Sauron was just a flaming eyeball at the end of the Third Age. He’d physically reincarnated by then and Gollum saw him during his torture (with 9 fingers). We saw attractive Sauron in RoP, now we can see ugly Sauron
I just don't understand why this, of all the options they had available, was the story they decided to tell. There are so many incredible stories to tell from the world of Middle-Earth, even within the relatively limited scope of what they have rights for. But this? What on earth are they going to make up and cram into this film to justify making a complete narrative out of it? This is going to make The Hobbit trilogy look like an incredibly faithful adaptation by comparison.
The sole reason is Andy Serkis' ego, wanting to reprise his most famous role. If they did anything else with the franchise, they wouldn't have Gollum in it. Which he cannot allow.
Because it has the potential to include all of the most marketable characters.
There must be a better reason than all of these but we are just to intellectually limited to see it. It must be like this. Please.
Great analysis, and I agree with pretty much everything. I hope the story is not centered only on Gollum, but rather swinging back and forth between him and 'the hunter', which ideally would be a new character.
I like the idea that the hunt for Gollum could be like the 24 of epic fantasy films, where it's a manhunt with all these different factions trying to figure out where he his and Gandalf going all Jack Bower on middle earth. It's scope would exceed the text but there is ample ground to tell an interesting story. That whole conversation that Gandalf has with Frodo in moria would actually have a better basis because Gandalf literally would have personally been in Bilbo's position himself and asking himself "are we the bad guys?"
Ultimately I think the only thing I really want (well, NEED) to see in this is the same balance between love and respect for the source material and innovative imagination that was present throughout the production of the main trilogy. Ultimately the world of the films FEELS different and yet the same to the books because it IS different and yet the same. There is a particular interview in which Tolkien refers to middle earth as "the world in a different place of the imagination" or something similar. I feel like that's the spirit of Tolkien in a single sentence. The original films succeeded, in my eyes, because the team behind them understood how to carefully allow the books to blend with their current state of reimagining the world.
Aside from that, I would like to see more exploration of the themes of Beren and Luthien explored in the relationship between Aragorn and the Lady Arwen, particularly if they keep to Aragorn's character at this time being reluctant to assume kingship.
I would also be very curious to see just what state Gollum is in immediately after "escape" from Barad Dur. There is a scene in the books, just before Sam wakes up and chastises Gollum, wherein Tolkien describes the green light fading from Smeagol's eyes as he looks like the most ancient hobbit ever seen. It would lack the significance of the scenario but I would still like to see that image visually represented on screen.
Cheers to another excellent video!
Man, you hit the nail in the head!
I'm concerned about the Gollum film as well for many different reasons. You, however, broke it down perfectly. What is Gollum without Frodo if - for me - Gollum's very purpose in TLOTR is to raise the stakes in Frodo's own quest?
Throughout the story, Frodo is confronted on two fronts. First, with the utter destruction of everything good seeing in the mirror of Galadriel. And second with the destruction of the self, meaning, what Frodo would become should he claim the One-Ring for himself which is reflected in the creature Gollum.
Why separate a great character - Gollum - from his wonderful service to the story is beyond me.
The Hunt for Gollum is already a fan made film which is pretty good actually.
Gandalf and Aragorn can be shown as monstruous scary hunters in Gollum's point of view. That would be interesting
your insights on Gollum as a foil really makes it difficult to see how they could create a story really worth telling here. But i'm hoping for the best.
A miniseries adaptation of Children of Hurin has the potential to be incredible, but they’d probably jam wizards and hobbits into the story and ruin it for no other reason except casual audiences expecting them to be there.
I have serious doubts about this project. A prequel with characters that appear later is natural plot armour. It is hard to suspend disbelief in real peril. I don't know if we need to see Gollum's fall much more beyond what we have already seen.
I have every faith in this writing team. I believe they're capable of writing an intriguing story set within the time frame available. Much like Stoppard did with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead. It might not be Tolkien's story but, hopefully, it will mirror his world.
I’m conflicted as well. This could be AMAZING with the creative team/actors but there’s sooo many other stories they could tell.
I can't say I'm especially excited to see this new film from the director of Venom: There Will Be Carnage. I'm more intrigued by the second, unspecified film they've announced, though that will also live or die by its concept.
Personally, ever since I saw Crimes of the Future, I've been hoping they would make a King Elessar film so that Viggo can reprise the role as his real age - House of the Dragon in Gondor, if you like. Tolkien wrote an opening chapter for a thriller novel about a dark cult plaguing Minas Tirith during the reign of Aragorn's son - if you fudge that a little, you could have it happen during Aragorn's reign instead, and even include Gimli, Legolas, Merry and Pippin. The appendices say that Merry and Pippin remained close with Aragorn, and eventually moved to Gondor, where they were ultimately buried alongside him, so this approach would seem to solve the problem that led Tolkien to abandon The New Shadow (that it was depressing and uninteresting because it lacked hobbits). Getting the five remaining members of the Fellowship back together for one final adventure seems like it could be a worthy epilogue. I don't think I'd trust the writers of War of the Rohirrim to realise it, though.
For my two cents - first there is the issue of chronology i.e. how will the existence of these two films affect the viewing experience of the existing movies. There's nothing worse than the idea of a film that takes place "between" two scenes of an existing film and fundamentally turns an opportunity for storytelling into nothing more than "fill in the backstory" content that has basically destroyed things like the STAR WARS universe and the HARRY POTTER films (even if they hadn't already been destroyed by the former's fans and the latter's author).
On the flip side, the other issue is the filmmakers. On the plus side, Jackson, Walsh and Boyens have phenomenally good taste in material. That has never been an issue, especially when it comes to Middle Earth -- they classed up THE HOBBIT to a level that most people doubted was possible. But on the other hand Jackson - in particular - got involved with THE HOBBIT for financial reasons as a kind of payback against Warners Hollywood accounting that he and many other participants suffered from the LORD OF THE RINGS. Likewise, Jackson adapted KING KONG for Universal for the exact same reason; payback for killing the project back in 1996 by blowing the 2005 version up to such a massive scale that it provided years of income for his many NZ-based film businesses (such as the WETA Workshop and and WETA Digital). It is arguable that KONG, despite having some powerful moments and great writing, was bloated and tonally insane and unwieldy because it was in Jackson's best interests for it to be (alongside the huge paycheque he took home and a share of the gross profits instead of the net income!).
The choice to make THE HOBBIT into a trilogy was forced on them by Warners and Jackson happily complied. The choice of creating Tauriel was forced on them by Warners and Jackson complied. The scale and length of the action sequences in the BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES was partially mandated by Warners for Jackson to "out do" LORTR. I do honestly feel, as a New Zealander who works in the film industry and has worked with many of Jackson's colleagues, that if Jackson can sacrifice story integrity for capitalistic gain then he will take it - especially as he's spent the last almost ten years focusing on being a real estate mogul and a venture capitalist than a filmmaker. His decision to create of these two new films are proof of that. And my worry is how far will he allow the storytelling to suffer for another portion of the gross percentage and adding another decade of sustenance to his local NZ businesses.
And yet - having said all of that - Jackson, Walsh and Boyens have great taste and creative instincts. Boyens writing in THE WAR OF THE ROHIRRIM is great. The trio's writing in MORTAL ENGINES also had great choices and solid bones. The failure of Jackson's films like KONG, THE LOVELY BONES and the weak sections of THE HOBBIT TRILOGY (and even MORTAL ENGINES) are an issue of brevity. Having worked with Jackson's editors and his LOTR producers, the most common demand in the editing room was "less is more" and for Jackson to kill his darlings for the sake of a film that has pace and sustained suspension of disbelief. These people who worked with him on LOTR were gone by the time THE LOVELY BONES was made and had no input on THE HOBBIT whatsoever; making me think that a vital part of the storytelling process has been missing in that creative team for almost a decade now. And yet, again, KONG and THE LOVELY BONES and THE HOBBIT TRILOGY and MORTAL ENGINES have (IMHO) very few genuinely "awful ideas" that originate from them and really only the namedrop of Aragorn in the third HOBBIT film felt cynical and totally creatively bankrupt out of all three of his prequel films.
So I really genuinely feel how torn you are -- the Wingnut Films camp are creatively very clever people and they have great taste. I feel like they will find a cool, fascinating and unexpected way to make the HUNT FOR GOLLUM films feel "legit" just like they made the opening of THE DESOLATION OF SMAUG with Thorin and Gandalf at The Prancing Pony feel legit. It will look and sound and feel like Jackson's Middle Earth and that place is full of 95-98% amazing creative ideas (whether they're adapting Tolkien's prose or not). And we can be assured that if these two films are made here in New Zealand, they will look absolutely amazing.
I just worry that the economics of why these films are being made will simply compromise it and we'll get more Tauriels and "Seek out the ranger named Strider" and so forth. But there is also another silver lining; with Jackson not directing we most certainly will not be drowning in 45 minute long battle sequences or Brontosaurus chases etc....or at least that will be my hope.
But of course, having said all of that, with Jackson not directing and cinematographer Andrew Lesnie tragically passed on, perhaps Serkis's version of Middle Earth will feel very different...and that might be for the worse rather than the better?
Poor Gollum. Just getting captured and interrogated by everyone 😅 (Naw wait, he literally ate babies... nevermind, no pity here)
I am concerned with shoehorning actors who are 25 years older than they were in the original films into a new film where they are supposed to be (at least) a few months younger than they were, and in the case of early Smeagol, well that's hard to say, at any rate younger than he was in the flashback where he killed his cousin/best friend. Are they going to resort to CGI effects to soften the facial aging that has happened? Another point: I think Gollum is not such a good fit for a Frankenstein-monster sort of treatment, because the monster was only visually a monster, he was very very scary to look at but he was not evil per se, he was entirely a victim of the Doctor who made him with a simple brain in a huge body. Gollum, who was a sort of Hobbit after all, fell instantly under the spell of the ring and immediately murdered to get it. So he wasn't some random innocent victim, he must have been in some sense ready to become a Gollum before the ring.
Anyway, I guess my biggest fear in this huge enlargement of a small side story, is that the secondary side stories will get concomitantly larger as well, until it becomes 2 hours of fluff with maybe 30 minutes of meat. We'll have Aragorn and Arwen in mismatched love, Smeagol being a misunderstood teen, and a chance meeting between Deagol and Bullroarer Took. Or the like. My default is not to see it, but if the word of mouth is good, then I probably will.
I think you're ultimately correct that they could possibly tell a good story, but they will not be able to tell a Tolkien story. Which leads usto the question - why bother telling it at all? The answer is obvious, and is why I'm not optimistic that they will tell a good original story.
I'm aware of the rights issues, but I desperately wish we could get a new trilogy of the three primary First Age stories. They are the only true Tolkien stories left to be adapted.
One of my concerns is how this movie will look. When I first heard about it, I hoped it would be animated, with the returning cast (Andy Serkis, Viggo Mortensen, Ian McKellen, etc) doing voice work for their characters. With live action comes de-aging effects, and with de-aging comes the potential for some pretty uncanny looking characters...
We already got four movies with this monkey. Which is three more than I would have needed. There is nothing left to discover about this character. This will be a solely ego-driven cash grab. In fact, they were so out of ideas, the only thing they hadn't done with gollum yet was that "Hunt for Gollum" fan film from 2009 which they then just trademarketed and sued those exact fans for.
Warner Brothers CEO calling Tolkien's life work 'content' is all you need to know about this product.
when I first heard about this movie, it was in the context of Viggo Mortensen getting involved to play Aragorn. I was imagining that it would really be his movie, then, and barely about Gollum at all except as an antagonist. Bringing Aragorn back is probably pointless, too, but he could have some kind of arc or meaningful relationship to explore. I don't know what there could be to do with Gollum that we haven't already seen.
Attempts to explore Gollum as a standalone character do not have a great track record so far....
I enjoyed your discussion of Golum as a protagonist and his character. I think you could have easily spoken longer. It is interesting to think of it in terms of the range of any potential character arc/growth.
I'm sceptical of this trend now in movies to 'humanise' villains such that they become sympathetic characters (a la Elpheba, Cruella, etc). In fairness, Golum was humanised well in the LotR trilogy already so it doesn't quite apply here. A better example might be Jack Sparrow's standalone film. The character works as a secondary, comic relief character in Will Turner's story, but as the protagonist, is too much and too shallow. I worry that's the case....Golum works as a mirror and foil for Bilbo/Frodo.
heck yeah we do
I'm interested to see how Andy Serkis does essentially directing himself. These sorts of things can either go really well or turn into a weird, vaguely off-putting vanity project. And Andy hasn't shown much more than general competence as a director so far, though I think the material he had and external factors of those productions account for a lot of that. His portrayal of Gollum was genius and if that inspiration translates to the screen with this project it should be something to see. Fran Walsh and Philipa Boyens really do have their work cut out for them though.
Well from what I have read the movie is focused not so much on Gollum but on Aragorn he will be the protagonist
While there’s the possibility this could be a worthwhile story here, as we’ve seen with rings of power, there’s a lot that can wrong and it could end up damaging the world of Tolkien. I personally don’t have a lot of faith that this will be very good.
Let's hope that they use the vast vistas of Middle-Earth as David Lean uses the desert in Lawrence of Arabia, i.e. as a "living" part of the narrative. It could make a relatevely simple story into a grand epic story. Think about the spagetti westerns: You are reslly not sure if you're watching a good guy or a bad guy, but still you wonder what the hell is going to happen next!!
Excellent video, as usual
Im mixed on the Gollum movie, the Rohirim one though has my full attention
MY MAN how do you write videos on the best things??
You started with LOTR, star wars, FINAL FANTASY VII??? [and more lotr too!]
Those are like the best things all in one channel!
also if you've more talk of Final Fantasy in particular [or anime] that would be amazing, there's at least one dude right here happy for one
My first thought before I watched your video: "Please, no."
And after your video, my first thought is pretty much the same. But let me elaborate.
I think one of the most powerful ways of telling a fantasy story, is actually not telling. Maybe we could call that "the art of not telling".
If is in the name of the genre: "fantasy". I don't appreciate it when film studios try to feed every last bit to the audience, taking away their every need of fantasizing or deep thought.
I am not expecting much from this. I might be wrong though, and I hope I am.
it is hard to see this really being any good. The LOTR is a classic and well loved story and I think when they made they film it was a cumulation of years of being in love with the material and wanting to do it right. Everything since doesn't and can't have the same level of reverence. When you're life's work is to tell one story so well everything else is an after thought. This Gollum story will be written essentially from scratch for the purpose of making this film. It is not possible to care as deeply about it as when they made LOTR.
there is a way for the Hunt for Gollum to be done really well - but I don't understand why that was the most compelling story available. Why not make movies out of the wider legendarium? why not tap the Silmarillion or Unfinished tales for potential movies? Beren and Luthien, Children of Hurin, Feanor and Fingolfin and the other Noldor and Eldar - there is just so much material.
It makes me so sad that the movie studios are cynical and in control of these beautiful stories at the same time. They need to give more control to the artists.
I honestly am not interested at alllllllll. Firstly after the Hobbit I don't have faith in the creative team to not fkk up again, and secondly..... I just don't care about having this narrative produced as films.
How do you feel about Mikasa, from ~Attack on Titan~, and it's ending?
The Hunt for More Loot 💰
I'm done with Gollum. Sorry Andy
I just saw war of the Rohirrim, at least Hera didn't crush on Sauron like a certain married elf is doing in another show that shall not be named. So they want to turn a pretty poor video game into a movie? Okay then