The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy (Extended Edition) (2001-2003)

[philzilla]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I admit, a little exaggerated. However, you have to admit there is some truth to it.

OK, but now I'm taking the award back

[riverbelow]

I was refraining from contemplative examples...and of course they will be remade I never argued the contrary I just said not in our lifetime...so lets say that means 30-50 years depending how old posters here are.

In-line with psycho being remade..and Manchurian candidate, and king kong, and planet of the apes. etc etc. Remakes are old-hat but reboots is what this would have to be to be done within 10 years....and its not reboot material. It's too successful and important to cinema to be rebooted so soon. This isn't a comic book saga which is the only property to be rebooted so soon from their "original" in the live action medium.

So here goes on the contemplation of what I consider LOTR to be and judging by 'general audiences'.

Next you will say it's a chance Jaws will be remade?

Next you will say its a chance that rocky will be remade?

Next you will say its a chance rain man will be remade?

Next you will say it's a chance Apollo 13 will be remade?

Next you will say it's a chance the matrix trilogy will be remade?

Next you will say it's a chance The Lion King will be remade?

Sometimes there is just one version that audiences can pallete within one medium, and certainly once a smashing success and people (general) latch onto a piece of art they will not abide another until a completely new generation comes along.

This was evidence with Sarah Connor Chronicles. They made a TV series because you could not possibly break through the wall of acceptance that James Cameron's first two movies are the definitive depiction of that story on film.

Same applies here. General audiences wouldn't go for it, and hence studio's wouldn't fund it. Now that PJ is stamping his territory on The Hobbit the viability of someone getting greenlit for a LOTR remake is really fanciful thinking. It's the hope of a disappointed book fan.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by riverbelow

I was refraining from contemplative examples...and of course they will be remade I never argued the contrary I just said not in our lifetime...so lets say that means 30-50 years depending how old posters here are.

In-line with psycho being remade..and Manchurian candidate, and king kong, and planet of the apes. etc etc. Remakes are old-hat but reboots is what this would have to be to be done within 10 years....and its not reboot material. It's too successful and important to cinema to be rebooted so soon. This isn't a comic book saga which is the only property to be rebooted so soon from their "original" in the live action medium.

So here goes on the contemplation of what I consider LOTR to be and judging by 'general audiences'.

Next you will say it's a chance Jaws will be remade?

Next you will say its a chance that rocky will be remade?

Next you will say its a chance rain man will be remade?

Next you will say it's a chance Apollo 13 will be remade?

Next you will say it's a chance the matrix trilogy will be remade?

Next you will say it's a chance The Lion King will be remade?

Sometimes there is just one version that audiences can pallete within one medium, and certainly once a smashing success and people (general) latch onto a piece of art they will not abide another until a completely new generation comes along.

This was evidence with Sarah Connor Chronicles. They made a TV series because you could not possibly break through the wall of acceptance that James Cameron's first two movies are the definitive depiction of that story on film.

Same applies here. General audiences wouldn't go for it, and hence studio's wouldn't fund it. Now that PJ is stamping his territory on The Hobbit the viability of someone getting greenlit for a LOTR remake is really fanciful thinking. It's the hope of a disappointed book fan.

You've managed to cite examples of movies that have not been remade YET. However what about all the other ones that HAVE been remade?

I would never have thought that after Arnold owned the Conan role so well that Conan the Barbarian would ever have been remade in my lifetime. Yet it has been.

Disappointed book fan? I'll wear that label with pride. The closer someone makes the movies to the book lessens the chances that it will be remade someday. Let's remember that PJ's version (or alternate universe version) of LOTR was NOT the first attempt. It was exactly because the source material was so great, that PJ remade what Bakshi failed to finish.

http://forums.theonering.com/viewtopic.php?t=94673

[retablo]

Originally Posted by riverbelow

Next you will say it's a chance Jaws will be remade?

Well, there IS a rumor floating around that JAWS could possibly be remade in 3D.

I doubt they will remake LOTR anytime soon. After The Hobbit, maybe they will make original spin-off movies, who knows. I don't consider LOTR to be important to cinema, but it was successful enough that no one will touch it for a while.

[mitch22]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Not meant to sound anti-U.S. (because I am anything but), however, British actors are generally far superior to U.S. actors as a whole. They actually have to go through real training, theater, etc. and it's an actual career from a very young age in many cases. (Harry Potter another great example). Where as U.S. actors generally are only selected because of their looks. Nothing else really matters much with few exceptions. British film makers are also far more concerned about quality where as most U.S. film makers will put together any piece of garbage with no effort so long as it will make money. What I am trying to say is, if Lord of the Rings is re-done in typical Hollywood fashion, it will be a piece of crap. I agree though, it will probably be re-done one day unfortunately.

This statement isn't ridiculous. Actors across the pond are way better.

[Uxi]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

I absolutely hate the whole lets remake everything attitude of hollywood today, but a new Lord of the Rings film would NOT be a remake of this film, it would be another adaptation of my favorite stories of all time.

Perfectly said. New LOTR would not be a remake or a reboot but hopefully a more accurate adaptation.

It will be done, whether in the next 10 years or the next 20, or even 30, IT WILL HAPPEN.

Indeed. The Newline films showed they could be filmable. I am looking forward to a more faithful adaptations.

[rocks off]

I could perhaps see a more faithful HBO-type mini-series in the future, no doubt. But, you're just not gonna see another actual film trilogy.

[MacEachaidh]

In spite of the bits people feel are contentious, there's so much Peter Jackson got right about those films - particularly when a lot of people were still saying the books were essentially unfilmable - that I'm personally happy to live with what we've got, at least for a decent while.

Personal druthers: for now, rather than see a remake of Lord of the Rings, I'd dearly love to see Stephen Donaldson's Chronicles of Thomas Covenant filmed, maybe as an HBO-quality TV mini-series. I know it owes a debt to Tolkien (what modern fantasy work doesn't?! ), but that doesn't stop it from being a damned fine conception in its own right.

[Constitution 101]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Not meant to sound anti-U.S. (because I am anything but), however, British actors are generally far superior to U.S. actors as a whole. They actually have to go through real training, theater, etc. and it's an actual career from a very young age in many cases. (Harry Potter another great example). Where as U.S. actors generally are only selected because of their looks. Nothing else really matters much with few exceptions. British film makers are also far more concerned about quality where as most U.S. film makers will put together any piece of garbage with no effort so long as it will make money. What I am trying to say is, if Lord of the Rings is re-done in typical Hollywood fashion, it will be a piece of crap. I agree though, it will probably be re-done one day unfortunately.

It's not anti-US, it's a statement of fact(for the very reasons you mentioned). There's some fine American actors, but generally I think it's more looks than talent. IMHO the Brits usually give a more convincing performance.

[frogmort]

What does any of this have to do with LotR? Half of the actors are dimwitted, pretty Americans, right?

[Grand Bob]

Perhaps a (HBO?) production similar to the made-for-TV version of Dune could be accomplished for LotR, where the production value was not quite as high as the theatrical movie version, but instead a longer, truer-to-the-book version produced that was still of high quality. In this manner, many episodes could be produced that would cover practically every aspect of the novel: the Old Forest, Bombadil, the Barrow-downs, the scouring of the Shire, the "real" demise of Saruman, etc., perhaps over most of a TV season. I believe most people would be willing to sacrifice some detail in special effects, etc., if the entire story were told. I'm sure there are many excellent relatively unknown (i.e. inexpensive) actors and production crew members that are Tolkien fans who would love to get involved such a project.

[KubrickFan]

If you want the book, just read the book.

[#Darren]

Sounds good. And they could cast better actors for the Hobbits.

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Perhaps a (HBO?) production similar to the made-for-TV version of Dune could be accomplished for LotR, where the production value was not quite as high as the theatrical movie version, but instead a longer, truer-to-the-book version produced that was still of high quality. In this manner, many episodes could be produced that would cover practically every aspect of the novel: the Old Forest, Bombadil, the Barrow-downs, the scouring of the Shire, the "real" demise of Saruman, etc., perhaps over most of a TV season. I believe most people would be willing to sacrifice some detail in special effects, etc., if the entire story were told. I'm sure there are many excellent relatively unknown (i.e. inexpensive) actors and production crew members that are Tolkien fans who would love to get involved such a project.

[Brodo Faggins]

I would not trust anyone but the BBC to do a mini series for LOTR. 40 episodes should do it.

[aiman04]

A re-adaptation is different than a remake.

[Tibor Lugosi]

Originally Posted by mitch22

This statement isn't ridiculous. Actors across the pond are way better.

Really?!

Name 10 A-list actors from the UK. Christian Bale and Daniel Craig are the only ones that come to mind, and that's only due to Batman and 007. No contest.

A more correct statement would be "supporting actors from across the pond are way better".

[Constitution 101]

Originally Posted by frogmort

What does any of this have to do with LotR? Half of the actors are dimwitted, pretty Americans, right?

Gee, I dunno. Maybe it's because there's a significant number of foreign actors in LOTR compared to most movies?

[MacEachaidh]

Originally Posted by Constitution 101

Maybe it's because there's a significant number of foreign actors in LOTR compared to most movies?

Foreign to whom, kimosabe?

[longfumoon]

I just brought the extended version of lord of the ring blu-ray and have no idea how the digital copy works, does anyone know how it works

thanks in advance

61er

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by longfumoon

I just brought the extended version of lord of the ring blu-ray and have no idea how the digital copy works, does anyone know how it works

thanks in advance

61er

They download off a site just like Inception and other Warner titles. Just follow the instructions on the slip of paper.