Was LOTR a One-Off? Part 2
-How Do The Successors Compare?-
The Journey Continues
Welcome to part two of my exploration into the cinematic adaptations of Tolkien’s mythos. In the first part, which you can find here, we covered the Peter Jackson trilogy and why it worked so well. In this part, we talk about successors to that trilogy and why they maybe didn’t hit the mark. As well as having a look at what we already know about “Rings Of Power” and whether this new series can continue the legacy of amazing representations of Tolkien and his work or whether it signals that it is nigh time to leave these stories as the legends they are. So without further ado, Read on and enjoy!
What Came Next?
I think a prime example of why I believe this was the one and only time we will ever see this phenomena is what followed it. The Hobbit, easily my favourite book of all time and yet I cannot say the films stand up to the legacy. I think this comes down to a few key points. The first and probably one of the biggest problems is studio interference. Starting before the movie even entered production when it was decided they would try and make an entire trilogy based on one of Tolkien’s smallest books. This meant they they had to really try to drag it out to fill the run-time, resulting in a trilogy full of fluff, filler and many sequences which were bloated for no reason and had no real impact on the story. Plus, the creation of an enormous CG battle that nearly lasted the length of a whole movie, despite the fact that it was never described much in the book due to our titular hobbit getting knocked unconscious before the fight. The other main reason being the over-reliance on green-screens and CGI throughout the movie. To top it off, Jackson didn’t even join the project until after production started with Guillermo del Toro in the chair. So he didn’t get to set the project up the way he wanted. The final nail in the coffin came in the form of studio interference. It has been stated that there was considerable studio interference from Warner Bros according to actor Jed Brophy, who worked on both trilogies. This took away the complete creative control that Jackson had when working on the first LOTR trilogy. “The Hobbit” trilogy is in no way bad, but you can tell that there wasn’t the same level of care and passion involved in it’s creation. Even with the great cast available, it’s hard to get the same quality of acting from them when everyone is alone in a green room talking to themselves. A point famously demonstrated by Sir Ian McKellen when footage of this legendary actor shows him breaking down in tears on set due to this exact problem. Either way, I cannot see the Hobbit going down in history the same as it’s predecessor. This was proven at the box office. Despite costing $745 million instead of $280 and being able to ride on the coat-tails of “The Lord Of The Rings”, ‘The Hobbit’ made nearly the same amount. However, whereas the box office takings for each successive “Lord Of The Rings” movie increased, the opposite was true for “The Hobbit”. Starting with “An Unexpected Journey” at $1.017 billion and immediately dropping off to $959 million and $962 million for the second and third films respectively. Not a huge drop off and still a lot of money, but definitely shows that there was maybe a slight loss of interest in the general public. This was not an issue with the original trilogy though, which saw a steady increase in attention from beginning to end, starting at $898 million and climbed each film to reach a whopping $1.146 billion with “The Return Of The King”.
The other guys
Another major point to look at in this time that has helped shape our television and film theatres is ‘Game Of Thrones’. A more modern but also massively influential take on the fantasy genre. An entertainment juggernaut in it’s own right, sprouting from the creative mind of a man who looked at Tolkien’s works and thought to himself: “This battle is cool and all and I’m super happy the good guys won. But how much do you think it cost to feed all of those horses?” or “It would have been interesting to see how the fellowship would react to Gandalf suddenly betraying them and decapitating Aragorn,”or even “I want to see more elf boobies,”. He then got to work writing his own story that explored all these wonderful concepts. Examining the inner-workings of such a world and trying to find a way to realisticallypresent all the wonders of high fantasy while applying real world logic throughout. It’s a totally different beast to ‘The Lord Of The Rings’ and it really goes all in on the maturity side too. Brutally sucking all hope and joy out of the world and relying on a great deal of shock to propel the drama forward. It exploded in popularity as people clamoured like Romans at the Colosseum, desperate to get a glimpse of their favourite gladiator as he gets impaled on the end of a trident and coughs his organs up all over the sand.
Although I think middle-earth has perhaps got the most amazing and well thought out world ever written, I cannot deny that Westeros delves into the intricacies of the inner workings of such a world so well and presents it in a complex and dramatic way. However, my problem with ‘Game Of Thrones’ is that once you’ve watched it once, it loses a huge chunk of it’s value. Once the mysteries unravel and all the twists and turns are played out, there is very little to see. You only get that rush of excitement the first time through. After that, it’s just a less fantastical and more pessimistic version of it’s much older and more classic cousin. People may enjoy the thrill, but at the end of the day, nothing feels better than seeing the good guys vanquish evil by following their best qualities and standing by their beliefs, even when tested. People like fantasy because it provides an escape from reality. Worrying about the increase in taxes on grain in Rohan after Sauron and his forces are defeated would pull you away from the magic. It may make for a good drama, but I think people will always be drawn back to the classics for that feeling of optimism and hope. There is less drama and fewer twists to try and figure out, but watching the characters grow together and overcome hardship is just as fun. Not to mention sending out a strong message of solidarity.
Some may disagree with all I have said here and I do believe that ‘Game Of Thrones’ represents a shift in peoples opinions and what they look for in entertainment. So many shows have since moved towards reality and representing an alternative look at real life instead of outright fantasy. People do enjoy it and that’s good. It has given creators a new avenue to explore. But it appears that this has extended to Tolkien’s works now, as it has been mentioned that ‘Rings Of Power’ will be grittier and more grounded than previous stories in middle-earth, Jeff Bezos did say he wanted the new Game of Thrones on Amazon. However, years from now, once people grow bored of the twists and turns and wish to find a purer form of escapism to distract them from the mundane, they’ll turn back to the classics. After all, Tolkien wrote his books in the grimmest of times for the world and they have acted as a beacon ever since, whether in literature or film.
Political entertainment
So now we get to another major change from the last 2 decades. Hollywood has always been very progressive in it’s ideology. Always trying to push the bounds of what public opinion will accept. In many ways that is excellent. Progress is almost always positive. But in the last 20 years public opinion has become more and more divided. Everyone has nothing better to do than sit around and argue, especially since the advent of the internet. So that’s exactly what they have done. Argue. It’s created a world that is more driven by individual political opinions than ever before, something that extends to Hollywood too. The freedom to express opinions is everywhere and people in entertainment basically have a loud speaker. So they shout as loud as they can in the hopes of influencing the world to see it their way. I’m all for a degree of politics being present in all forms of art as it is a part of the artist coming through in their work. However, when it comes to representing another artists work who has long since passed, I believe it is your duty as the messenger to keep your opinion out of it and only try your best to convey the opinions and messages of the original artist. Otherwise, why on earth did you choose to use this artists work if you don’t agree with it?
From what can be seen in the trailers and what has been discussed by the cast and crew in public, it is looking more and more like they are using these stories as a vessel for their own real world opinions and politics. Again, this is fine if you are making your own original art, but not when trying to tell someone else’s story. I have mentioned changes in the original trilogy made by Jackson and his crew, but they were mainly changes made in an attempt to adapt the story to a new medium and not to convey Jackson’s own political opinions or as some attempt to appease someone else. All this talk of “interpretations” in the interviews with the cast does concern me slightly and combined with the show seeming to lean more into gritty twists and turns along with a heavy dose of in-universe politics mixed with what seem to be totally fabricated events and characters or heavily altered versions of popular existing characters such as Galadriel and Elrond, I am worried that this will move too far from the faithful representation of Tolkien and the hope and optimism he tries to convey, favouring a darker tone more akin to George R. R. Martin, with an unhealthy serving of the real world. Turning the show away from something great, and making it a bit more forgettable as nothing more than a money grab wrapped up in a mouth piece for the show-runners and crews opinions regarding inclusivity, using the hype around Tolkien’s universe to boost it’s popularity, a popularity that spans across a multitude of cultures and ethnicities despite his writings not being “inclusive”. Given that Tolkien’s work makes for some of the best selling books of all time and has been translated into 57 different languages, I don’t believe that many genuine Tolkien fans have ever had an issue with diversity or inclusivity in his stories, especially since those stories promote working together, despite our differences, to overcome a greater evil.
A Fools Hope
I believe that if this upcoming show can let go of the real world and it’s issues enough and just focus on providing the escapism that a lot of people miss these days, then it has the potential to be good, maybe not as great as it’s predecessor or other heavy hitter shows like Game of Thrones, but still something that we can relax and enjoy. However, with what we’ve seen so far in the build-up, I’m not sure if that is something we’re going to get. Regardless, I’ll be waiting for this release and I’ll be sitting alongside everyone else, ready for another dive into this fantastic universe, after all, the budget for the show is sky high, so it is entirely possible to make something entertaining (At roughly $58 million per episode, it should technically be a given that it would be a little entertaining). At least they got Howard Shore back for the main titles too. He is a man I have not praised enough for his contribution to middle-earth, given that his music plays a key role in shaping the universe and the emotions we feel when we experience it. So maybe there is still a glimmer of hope for this franchise. Even if it is just a fools hope.