Help support TMP

"New Middle Earth TV Series " Topic

43 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Fantasy Media Message Board

1,361 hits since 14 Nov 2017
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Hafen von Schlockenberg Inactive Member14 Nov 2017 6:06 a.m. PST

Coming from Amazon:


I had been assuming another decade or two before someone remade LOTR as a miniseries. But apparently this is supposed to be a prequel of some kind. What could it be? The Silmarillion? Or "original" stories?


YogiBearMinis Supporting Member of TMP14 Nov 2017 6:27 a.m. PST

I doubt they have the rights to the Silmarillion—my guess is either (1) events between The Hobbit and LOTR trilogy (most likely), or (2) generic Third Age stuff. I really doubt it goes too far back—I personally bet they want to capitalize on somewhat familiar characters and plot lines and not go off on a complete new tangent.

YogiBearMinis Supporting Member of TMP14 Nov 2017 6:28 a.m. PST

Dear God, I just described the "Early Adventures of Frodo and Sam," didn't I ?

M C MonkeyDew14 Nov 2017 6:33 a.m. PST

"Young Frodo Baggins"!

KeithRK14 Nov 2017 6:52 a.m. PST

Hobbit Babies!

Dynaman878914 Nov 2017 6:57 a.m. PST

Hobbiton: 90210

FABET0114 Nov 2017 6:57 a.m. PST

Could be a hobbit soap opera – "The Short and the Restless"

Or a series about Aragorn growing up in Rivendell – "Elrond Knows Best".

Or one about the early years of Mithrandir – "Gandalf, The college Years".

jsmcc9114 Nov 2017 7:08 a.m. PST

From another article I read, they have the blessing from the estate to make the series and it will be before the Lord of the Rings takes place. We shall see.

Gone Fishing14 Nov 2017 7:28 a.m. PST

Some of the titles suggested above have made my morning!

jsmcc9114 Nov 2017 7:55 a.m. PST


Winston Smith Supporting Member of TMP14 Nov 2017 8:06 a.m. PST

Just leave out Tom Bombadil again and I don't care what they do.

M C MonkeyDew14 Nov 2017 8:11 a.m. PST

jsmcc91 LOL

"The Plunder Years" as they live off Bilbo's ill gotten fortune

Winston Smith Supporting Member of TMP14 Nov 2017 8:43 a.m. PST

The Sackville-Baggins plundering the estate.

Palewarrior14 Nov 2017 9:31 a.m. PST

A young Frodo deals with gender confusion issues, meanwhile Frodo's best mate Samantha, is found unconscious after smoking more than half a pound of "old Toby"… episode one.

ppecena14 Nov 2017 9:50 a.m. PST

"The Dukes of Harad"

(if they can get Tom Wopat and John Schneider to sign on)

Dynaman878914 Nov 2017 9:54 a.m. PST

> Just leave out Tom Bombadil again and I don't care what they do.

Tom Bombadil's Playhouse?

> if they can get Tom Wopat and John Schneider to sign on

Not like their doing anything else…

ppecena14 Nov 2017 9:56 a.m. PST

"Welcome Back Carcharoth"

Hafen von Schlockenberg Inactive Member14 Nov 2017 10:47 a.m. PST

Good grief, I've created a monster! Or at least, unleashed a horde of punsters.

According to this,no Silmarillion:


The Tolkien Estate will probably never sell rights to that as long as Christopher Tolkien controls it. But Amazon paid 250 MILLION bucks for something. The question is,what,exactly?

The One Ring article implies that it will be the "source material" in the appendices. Now that could be interesting. "The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen" could make for a good story arc; Aragorn had plenty of adventures before the War of the Ring.

Reaching further back, I'd imagine more people here than I would like to see some of the wars of Gondor--I'd love to see "The Story of Cirion and Eorl" done well. I wonder if the Third Age material from "Unfinished Tales" was part of the deal.

But getting back to the tone of the thread, looks like a subject for a poll question, doesn't it?

FABET0114 Nov 2017 11:19 a.m. PST

HvS – On a serious note I agree. The backstory on Aragon and Arwen would make a great story line. Especially something that puts emphasis on their lineage.

Another possibilities are miscellaneous Hobbit stories: The Battle of Greenfields, The Fell Winter… How about those hobbit that Gandalf supposedly lead off on adventures? Why was Bilbo's mother the "fabulous" Belladonna Took?

I suspect this will more likely be more like "Games of Thrones" situated in old Arnor, when the three kingdoms ( Arthedain, Cardolan, and Rhudaur) go after each under the influence of Angmar. There would be lots of opportunities for killing off characters.

I'll check it out, but I don't have high hopes for it feeling like Middle Earth.

Hafen von Schlockenberg Inactive Member14 Nov 2017 11:36 a.m. PST

Yes,there's plenty of scope for political and dynastic drama--though I'd rather they didn't turn Tolkien into GRRM.

It appears Gimli is against the whole idea:


jsmcc9114 Nov 2017 11:37 a.m. PST

"Shire Improvement"

YogiBearMinis Supporting Member of TMP14 Nov 2017 12:04 p.m. PST

I really think they will try and anchor THIS series to some characters or events in The Hobbit or trilogy—the executives would not be willing to risk this kind of money on the unfinished stories involving completely new characters. There is some mention of a second/spin-off series in addition to this one, and I can imagine that the second series might be more "original" or obscure in its origins.

Gone Fishing14 Nov 2017 12:46 p.m. PST

Must say I agree with Rhys-Davies on this one. While the endless milking of the LOTR franchise shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody – the entertainment industry being what it is – it still saddens one a little, and there's little question Tolkien would be aghast.

Andy Skinner Supporting Member of TMP14 Nov 2017 12:57 p.m. PST

I don't think Rhys-Davies said they shouldn't do middle earth, but shouldn't do LotR again just for more money. He said newer, younger writers should make new stories in Middle Earth. I'm not at all sure that would be a good thing. The kinds of new ME stories I would like probably wouldn't sell, and vice-versa.


Hafen von Schlockenberg Inactive Member14 Nov 2017 1:12 p.m. PST

As noted above, there are lots of still-untold stories in the appendices and Unfinished Tales. I wouldn't mind an appearance by Queen Beruthiel:


FABET0114 Nov 2017 2:01 p.m. PST

And her cats?

Hafen von Schlockenberg Inactive Member14 Nov 2017 2:14 p.m. PST

Of course!


Naturally, the story would include her husband, Falastur,first of the Ship Kings,and his mighty building program.

At least in my imagination.

Something I never knew: from the interview cited here:úthiel

Tolkien conceived of her as actually loathing cats.

Tiberius14 Nov 2017 2:18 p.m. PST

Guess who is coming to dinner?

Winston Smith Supporting Member of TMP14 Nov 2017 5:10 p.m. PST

There's a heck of a lot of written material "that fell behind the radiator in Dad's office".

The one good thing to come out of this will be that the more money Bezos spends on it, the less he will be spending on World Domination.

Hafen von Schlockenberg Inactive Member14 Nov 2017 6:21 p.m. PST

Ah,but it's all part of his diabolical plan.

Or something.

FABET01--I believe it was "famous", but yes,she's "one of the three remarkable daughters of the Old Took". Though it's never said what was remarkable about them. An example of the "taken as known" technique Tolkien used throughout The Hobbit. Randall Helms and T.A.Shippey discussed it.

In this case, I think it's part of the "Rule of Threes" that manifests itself in Hobbit and LOTR, but I won't go into that here.

FABET0114 Nov 2017 7:25 p.m. PST

HvS – Belladona is "the fabulous" in the revised editions, "famous" in the original. I read the revised first, so that line always stuck with me.

The "taken as know" was a great way to make the world seem more lived in, but once you've gotten attached to the stories (as clearly you and I have) it make you want to know more.

Personal logo Patrick R Supporting Member of TMP15 Nov 2017 5:29 a.m. PST

Let me guess …

Generic fantasy story that "borrows" heavily from current most popular series (something with ice, fire stuff) Throw in the barest minimum of random Tolkien references to fill the minimal quota ?

I expect buzz like "We're exploring the darker side of Middle-Earth." because "We just use the name and nothing else to draw crowds" would be too on the nose.

Hafen von Schlockenberg Inactive Member15 Nov 2017 10:19 a.m. PST

You mean something like the new "Twin Peaks" version of Archie and the Gang?

I hope not (actually,that show is kind of fun--but then,I've never been invested in the Archie Universe).

From what I've read, the Tolkien Estate is cooperating with Amazon and New Line,the implication being some measure of control,or at least input,on the project. So maybe it won't wander as far afield as that.

FABET01: Now you've got me wondering--which edition are you referring to? The Annotated Hobbit used the 1966 edition,and has "famous". Not a very important point,of course, but I'm curious; if you have your copy to hand,could you let me know the edition? I ask as a somewhat casual Hobbit collector,and I'd like to know what to look for. For years, I used to pick up new editions,just to check if they'd corrected the erroneous "wild respectable country" to "wide respectable country". Took them a long time.

FABET0115 Nov 2017 11:39 a.m. PST

HvS: My revised edition is from Ballantine Books, is the 1966, 71st printing. Page 16 uses "fabulous".

A lot of later printing reverted back to original text. My most recent edition is a 2007 pocket sized, leather cover that my incredibly tolerant wife bought me for Christmas. It's based on the 1995 Harper-Collins edition and uses "famous".

"The Annotated Hobbit" – what a great book. An absolute must/gotta have for every Tolkien fan.

FABET0115 Nov 2017 11:50 a.m. PST

HvS: Just realized I didn't tell you the actual edition – Here's the publishers note:

First Ballantine Books Edition : August 1965
Revised Edition:
First Printing: February 1966
71st Printing: November 1978

Hafen von Schlockenberg Inactive Member15 Nov 2017 8:23 p.m. PST

Hey,thanks. I wonder if that wasn't a typo,somewhere along the way. Hobbit, and especially LOTR,we're prone to errors of that kind.

Regarding Christopher Tolkien, it appears I spoke too soon:


So we may indeed see The Silmarillion (or "a" Silmarillion,anyway ) at some point in the future.

FABET0116 Nov 2017 7:14 a.m. PST

Probably is an editing error, but since it's the text I first read, it always stuck with me.

I saw the posting about Christopher Tolkien Retiring. While at 93 he certainly deserves it, but I worry for the future of the IP. It's already been severely compromised. It be a shame to see it drift further and further from J.R.R.s vision.

Hafen von Schlockenberg Inactive Member16 Nov 2017 7:50 a.m. PST

Damn Auto-Dolt! " 'We're' prone to errors ". GR#¥×!!

Though that's true, I prefer to make my own.

As for the new series, we'll just have to wait and see. I mainly worry about what happens when giant egos get hold of it. We've seen that already--PJ and his cronies considered themselves better writers than Tolkien.

My recommendation would be to print large posters showing Tolkien's comments on the proposed 50's fim,and put them on the walls of the writer's conference rooms.

Though from the evidence, it looks as if Jackson read them and said "Hey,those are all great ideas! Let's do it that way!".

FABET0116 Nov 2017 5:03 p.m. PST

I've no love for the Jackson movies either. Completely mutilated most of the main characters. Put them through the great Hollywood homogenizer and gave us the same pointless characters you see in most movies these days.
And then there's the tired old argument about it being a different medium and story has to charge.I understand things will have to be taken out for time, yet there was enough room to drown Aragorn in Isen and the Mario Brothers version of Moria. I will give him credit for cinematography and casting though.

I guess what bothers me the most are the number of people who believe that the movies are canon and will always see the books that way. Or worst yet, those who have told me the movies were better….

Hafen von Schlockenberg Inactive Member16 Nov 2017 5:33 p.m. PST

People are already complaining that any new work will taint the PJ "classics".

USAFpilot19 Nov 2017 10:47 a.m. PST

+1 FABET01

I'll add that the 13 episode BBC radio version of LOTR is outstanding and closer to the book then the movies. The movies were visually outstanding, but the pacing and dialogue was off; the screenplay really missed the mark.

Hafen von Schlockenberg Inactive Member19 Nov 2017 12:09 p.m. PST

I agree,and still consider the BBC production the best adaptation. (No Tom Bombadil,Winston, so you might enjoy it).

Not to be confused with the Mind's Eye Workshop version from 1979. That came in a wooden box. The BBC was always in a blue cardboard box.

USAFpilot--have you ever heard the Mind's Eye version? It's a US production, so,AFAIK,all American actors. I checked it out of the library,way back,but didn't get very far--I frankly found it extremely irritating. Seemed to be directed at small children. I see it's on youtube,so I may give it another try.

USAFpilot19 Nov 2017 1:50 p.m. PST

Hafen, yes, I've listened to both versions. I agree that the BBC version is much better.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.