TheLord of the Ringsis an epic fantasy story that never felt quite right in the modern blockbuster scene. It’s the only artistic vehicle big enough to capture most of the original text, but it’s also so bloated that it loses a lot in the translation. Peter Jackson’s beloved trilogy of adaptations felt perfect, but every subsequent attempt has fallen far short of its example. Part of the problem comes from the clash between the two mediums, the vast difference in source material, and the consistent fear of new ideas.
Warner Bros. Discoverythrough New Line Cinemais the primary owner ofThe Lord of the Rings. The company is in something of a slump right now, with both its finances and reputation in a downslide. They got far too used to reliably bankable franchises when they transitioned fromLord of the Ringsto theHarry Potterfranchise. Now, they’re struggling to light those fires again and begging for the opportunity to go back 20 years. The modern incarnations of both brands demonstrate this difficulty in vivid detail.
Lord of the Ringsis a finite resource
A skilled creator and a brilliant team can make a good movie out of anything. That’s been proven true enough times to be utterly inarguable. That axiom does not, however, imply that every source material is equally easy to work with. Everyone’sheard a book or a story called “unfilmable.“That’s often untrue, but it speaks to how difficult some works can be to translate to the screen. People thoughtThe Lord of the Ringswas unfilmable before someone filmed it. That claim seems almost silly now. Peter Jackson’s trilogy stands out as one of the finest book-to-movie adaptations ever made, but it was never a sure thing. Despite the many challenging characteristics of Tolkien’s opus,The Lord of the Ringshad several assets that guaranteed an eventual blockbuster attempt. Frankly, fans are lucky that they got an excellent one.
The Hobbitwas the start
The Lord of the Ringscame out 17 years afterThe Hobbit, or There and Back Again. In 2007,Lord of the Ringsachieved the impressive landmark of selling more than 150 million copies. In 2012,The Hobbiteclipsed morethan 100 million sales. Those numbers are imperfect, but they tell a story.The Lord of the Ringsremains one of the most popular stories ever told. Its popularity guaranteed an adaptation and a dedicated audience. The same is true ofThe Hobbit, but the 1937 children’s book wasn’t the same kind of story.The Lord of the Ringsfits well enough into the blockbuster mold because that’s the go-to venue for massive scale, epic fantasy, and extremely expensive spectacle. Doing the same thing withThe Hobbitfeels wrong. Three movies and ten hours was barely enough to capture most ofThe Lord of the Rings, but everyone argued that spreadingThe Hobbit, a 300-page book, over the same length was absurd. Warner Bros. wants to keep doing the same with increasingly reduced source material, and they’re simply running out.
Studios are the problem
It is increasingly difficult to do what Peter Jackson did toThe Lord of the RingstoThe Hobbit,The Silmarillion, or the side stories in the appendices. It would be hard to dowhat Peter Jackson did with anything. This is not to say that Tolkien’s other works are of any lower quality, but it’s almost impossible to compete with a cultural phenomenon on the level ofThe Lord of the Rings. This creates a double-edged sword. Warner Bros. wants this trick to work again and again for the rest of time, but they’re working with far less impressive material. The sad truth of the matter is that the first part of that sentence is a far bigger problem than the second one. The issue is that Warner Bros. just wants todoThe Lord of the Ringsagain.
Is there another way forward?
This year’sWar of the Rohirrimcould be the first of many potential answers to this issue. It’s adapting a tale from the back pages ofThe Lord of the Rings, developing a full-length feature filmout of a little over two pages, but it’s doing it in a new style. It’s an anime now, and the creators take massive liberties with the source material. This is a potential step forward that could open the door to a ton of interesting new material. The problem with consistently pulling from Tolkien is that it’s a non-renewable resource. The way to keep making art out of art is to let new and interesting creators add to the material. They certainly can’t leave the books behind, but they can’t expect consistent, overwhelming success if all they do is play the hits. That’s why it was so disappointing to see Warner Bros. promoteWar of the Rohirrimby playing a few minutes ofThe Lord of the Rings. Their message is not “here’s a bold new direction for the franchise.” It’s “please remember the very good films we financedand continue buying our products.”
TheLord of the Ringsfranchise isn’t going anywhere. Warner Bros. will continue trying whatever they think might work until the end of linear time. This is a sad truth about the current IP-driven Hollywood ecosystem. People want to see Tolkien on the big screen, and the fluctuations in quality won’t necessarily prevent ticket sales. It’s sad to see Warner Bros.slowly burn through Middle-earth, always knowing that they’re only two or three rough receptions away from just tryingLord of the Ringsagain. The only upside is that the old works are always still there. Take these wanton swings at the success of yesteryear as they come, and always remember that the good examples are immortal.
