Amazon Pays $200 Mil for Tolkien TV Series

Talk about the latest movies and video releases here!
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 22790
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Amazon Pays $200 Mil for Tolkien TV Series

#1 Post by AndyDursin » Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:17 pm

Enough already?

I totally disagree with this Deadline article wondering why they haven't reached out to Peter Jackson. If anything this needs a FRESH take, not another endless regurgitation after Jackson turned THE HOBBIT into a bloated, charmless turd of a trilogy.

http://deadline.com/2017/11/lord-of-the ... 202207331/

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 4193
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

Re: Amazon Pays $200 Mil for Tolkien TV Series

#2 Post by Paul MacLean » Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:29 am

AndyDursin wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:17 pm
Enough already?

I totally disagree with this Deadline article wondering why they haven't reached out to Peter Jackson. If anything this needs a FRESH take, not another endless regurgitation after Jackson turned THE HOBBIT into a bloated, charmless turd of a trilogy.
I'm honestly surprised they haven't. Jackson seems to have become synonymous with LOTR, to such an extent some people virtually think of him as the "creator" of those stories (and Tolkien at best a sort of distant provider of "raw material" for Jackson's vision). And of course the "Jackson style" has become the de rigueur formula for fantasy films.

But with Amazon so eager to have their own "Game of Thrones"-type series, this new show's style will probably be modeled on the "Jackson style" anyway (just as Game of Thrones is)!

Eric W.
Posts: 6556
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:04 pm

Re: Amazon Pays $200 Mil for Tolkien TV Series

#3 Post by Eric W. » Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:42 am

AndyDursin wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:17 pm
Enough already?
Yes.



I totally disagree with this Deadline article wondering why they haven't reached out to Peter Jackson. If anything this needs a FRESH take, not another endless regurgitation after Jackson turned THE HOBBIT into a bloated, charmless turd of a trilogy.

http://deadline.com/2017/11/lord-of-the ... 202207331/

Agreed 100 percent.




I guess I'll say it:

People are burned out on LOTR yet?

Unfortunately I fully expect LOTR: The Game of Thrones Edition which will be make Jackson's already too dark vision at times look like tiptoeing through the tulips in contrast.

Regardless of that: Jackson brought a lot of high quality craftsmanship and talent both in front and behind the camera that is going to be a tall order for this production to match.

Since Bezos is worth more than a bunch of small countries now, I guess anything is possible. :lol:

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 4193
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

Re: Amazon Pays $200 Mil for Tolkien TV Series

#4 Post by Paul MacLean » Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:26 pm

Eric W. wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:42 am
Regardless of that: Jackson brought a lot of high quality craftsmanship and talent both in front and behind the camera that is going to be a tall order for this production to match.
I won't deny that The Fellowship of the Ring was the best movie I went to see the night of its release.

mkaroly
Posts: 4409
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:44 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Amazon Pays $200 Mil for Tolkien TV Series

#5 Post by mkaroly » Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:08 pm

I found the LOTR films to be extremely moving and well done. ROTK went on too long though...he dragged out the Mount Doom sequence to the point where now, when I watch it, I get impatient. I still love Howard Shore's scores. THE HOBBIT was where Jackson went too far for me - should have been no more than two films MAXIMUM. Howard Shore's score not as memorable.

Eric W.
Posts: 6556
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:04 pm

Re: Amazon Pays $200 Mil for Tolkien TV Series

#6 Post by Eric W. » Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:12 pm

mkaroly wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:08 pm
I found the LOTR films to be extremely moving and well done. ROTK went on too long though...he dragged out the Mount Doom sequence to the point where now, when I watch it, I get impatient. I still love Howard Shore's scores. THE HOBBIT was where Jackson went too far for me - should have been no more than two films MAXIMUM. Howard Shore's score not as memorable.

They're high quality productions and good movies. I enjoyed them for what they are and regardless of anything else... I personally feel like there's been an overglut of LOTR largely and esp. thanks to those needless Hobbit movies.

Overall, the Jackson films and esp. the "original trilogy" et an overall high quality standard that Amazon's TV production is going to have their work cut out for them.

It's funny you mentioned Shore's music. It's been several years but I finally made myself go through them all again here recently. There's definitely some good music in there to be sure but I'll tell ya... it's a slog in a lot of parts, too, where nothing happens with the orchestra at all for fairly long periods. I have respect for Shore as a composer and overall I definitely respect what he did here but chances are it will probably be... lol, who knows how long...before I even listen to these again.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 22790
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: Amazon Pays $200 Mil for Tolkien TV Series

#7 Post by AndyDursin » Tue Nov 14, 2017 2:23 pm

Shore's music is a total bore for me. No interest in it. I think all of those films were too long and suffer from very bland visuals that are going to date them in time...I mean, he couldn't even photograph the actual ocean at the end of RETURN OF THE KING?

I do find pockets of the LOTR films entertaining and "respect them" but Jackson has become a one-trick pony. His KING KONG was a turkey that only kool-aid drinking critics loved (have you met anyone who actually liked it?) and the HOBBIT series ended up being for hardcore fans only. For all the barbs they take, I'd watch the SW prequels ANY DAY over the bloated mess of HOBBIT-sized crap Jackson served up over those movies...what should have been a SINGLE FILM was turned into some massive epic just for the sake of money.

I think his total reputation has sunk because of it. Sure Jackson earned a lot of money but he's a grossly overpraised filmmaker. LOVELY BONES? FRIGHTENERS? Yuck. HEAVENLY CREATURES was disturbing and effective but it's one of the few movies of his that was low-key and not some endless, self-indulgent slog like everything he's made since the first LORD OF THE RINGS.

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 4193
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

Re: Amazon Pays $200 Mil for Tolkien TV Series

#8 Post by Paul MacLean » Wed Nov 15, 2017 1:37 am

AndyDursin wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 2:23 pm
Shore's music is a total bore for me. No interest in it. I think all of those films were too long and suffer from very bland visuals that are going to date them in time...I mean, he couldn't even photograph the actual ocean at the end of RETURN OF THE KING?
Jackson owes his success and reputation to the amazing stroke of luck of being able to direct a great, epic story. But I don't feel he is intrinsically a "great filmmaker". Also, I never cared for his take on the material. I felt he took what was serious literature and adapted it into a relatively shallow, commercial action / horror flick for ADD teens. He also committed the grievous sin of inventing and adding new scenes (found nowhere in the book), and he also jettisoned elements of Tolkien's story which set a more "fairy tale" tone (like the Tom Bombadil sequence). For all the faults of the Ralph Bakshi adaptation, that version far-better captured the tone of Tolkien's work.

As far as Howard Shore, he is a wonderful orchestrator -- he really does have a phenomenal ear for instrumental blends and contrasts...but I find his themes un-engaging, and for me, vast swaths of the LOTR scores are meandering and directionless. I respect the effort he put into the music for the LOTR films, but I don't think his music is in the same league with other "Tolkien-esque" scores, like The Dark Crystal, Krull, Legend or The 13th Warrior.

Eric W.
Posts: 6556
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:04 pm

Re: Amazon Pays $200 Mil for Tolkien TV Series

#9 Post by Eric W. » Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:06 am

^^ Spot on, Paul.


I can't remember and if I ever feel like it I'll have to go looking for it but how did Jackson land such a huge project like the LOTR films coming off a "ho-hum" resume like had prior to it?


Anyways... we'll see what Amazon can do with this. LOTR meets Game of Thrones does nothing for me if that's where this is all headed.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 22790
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: Amazon Pays $200 Mil for Tolkien TV Series

#10 Post by AndyDursin » Wed Nov 15, 2017 11:18 am

Money. Remember the cast was mostly seen as B list at the time of production (still is for the most part). As for Jackson, he was a relatively thrifty hire as he could write, direct and handle all the effects in NZ, boasting a big tax break for New Line.

Remember they didn't want to hire James Horner because of money and had tabbed Wojicheck Kilar to score it initially. Shore ultimately got hired in what was a very outside the box choice at the time.

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 4193
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

Re: Amazon Pays $200 Mil for Tolkien TV Series

#11 Post by Paul MacLean » Wed Nov 15, 2017 11:39 am

AndyDursin wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 11:18 am
Money. Remember the cast was mostly seen as B list at the time of production (still is for the most part). As for Jackson, he was a relatively thrifty hire as he could write, direct and handle all the effects in NZ, boasting a big tax break for New Line.
Yeah, New Zealand seemed to be this untapped reservoir of talent (some of it very good) and had a landscape of enormous variety (snow-capped mountains, forests, beaches, volcanoes, etc.). Even so, I didn't feel the NZ landscape was suited to LOTR (as Tolkien was essentially describing Britain and Northern Europe in his stories).

A number of movies were subsequently filmed NZ (The Last Samurai, Narnia), but I suspect its remote, far-off location eventually made it impractical as a production center (especially with green screens rapidly taking the place of location shooting).

AndyDursin wrote: Remember they didn't want to hire James Horner because of money and had tabbed Wojicheck Kilar to score it initially. Shore ultimately got hired in what was a very outside the box choice at the time.
Yeah, I recall that. Horner was probably not interested in committing to three epic-length movies, back-to-back (Horner claimed he turned-down Harry Potter because he did not want to be part of a franchise). But also, I am sure New Line was reluctant to pay the fee of most A-list Hollywood composers. Considering Jackson is really more of a horror movie guy (and cast several horror veterans in LOTR, like Christopher Lee and Brad Dourif) he likely wanted Kilar on the strength of Coppola's Dracula, and probably settled on Howard Shore due to Shore's association with David Cronenberg.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 22790
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: Amazon Pays $200 Mil for Tolkien TV Series

#12 Post by AndyDursin » Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:24 pm

He's probably being diplomatic in this interview where he talks about turning it down but you know money was part of it. He also like you said Paul didn't want to spend so much time in NZ....same reason Sean Connery said no to Gandalf.

I would've much rather have heard what Horner would've done with these films. A shame we didn't get to hear it...and I bet he would've, as he said, handled things very differently than Shore did.

http://www.classicfm.com/composers/horn ... the-rings/

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 4193
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

Re: Amazon Pays $200 Mil for Tolkien TV Series

#13 Post by Paul MacLean » Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:51 pm

AndyDursin wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:24 pm
I would've much rather have heard what Horner would've done with these films. A shame we didn't get to hear it...and I bet he would've, as he said, handled things very differently than Shore did.
No doubt.

Shore's score was very morose and suffused with a dreary pall of doom. Horner I'm sure would have invested the films with a greater sense of hope and optimism -- and heroism (which is greatly lacking in Shore's music).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest