16 ms·

Obviously, I’ll wait and see once it comes out. But it seems odd to spend so much and not have a single established creator that has put out great content. And

Obviously, I’ll wait and see once it comes out. But it seems odd to spend so much and not have a single established creator that has put out great content. And not to involve Jackson seems off because even having him in a consulting role would be a good sign. Looking at the imdb page this seems like a corporate driven project rather than a creator driven project with lots of different directors that haven’t don’t anything remarkable and seem to have just done other Amazon shows. Of course there are video projects done by unknowns that turn out great (Jackson had done Heavenly Creatures and Frighteners and a few others before LOTR), but I was kind of hoping there’d be some creative team who is really into Tolkien who tells great stories. Also, I don’t recognize the actors at all. Like not a single one. Compared to LOTR, they didn’t rely on stars but they had Ian McKellen, Elijah Wood, Sean Aston, Viggo Mortenson, Liv Tyler, Christopher Lee, Sean Bean, Cate Blanchett. It seems strange to not have anyone. I thought this was a cost cutting effort, but that doesn’t make sense if $465M. I worry that this is Amazon saying “cost is no limit” to a project team instead of artists and creators.

cgeier 4y ago
While I'm not particularly looking forward to this series, having rather unknown actors isn't putting me off at all. And why shouldn't they go with directors they are happy with? TV series often have a lot of different directors, often directing just a single episode of a season or even a series.
- oneoff786 4y ago
  TV series are often bad though. You can often see drastic dips in episode quality. Do they really know what they’re doing with these directors?
- Sebb767 4y ago
  The budget-talent-ratio just seems off. Usually, movies spend a lot of money on hiring talent, which here clearly isn't the case here. So the question is where is that money going. Grandparent and I are afraid that we end with something graphically completely overproduced and no story. Also, if you provide a junior engineer with a few million, you can't expect perfect software, even with that budget. Same reservations apply here.
  - newsclues 4y ago
    In Hollywood you don’t always hire people for talent but branding and audience awareness. If you have a brand like the Hobbit you don’t need brand name actors or directors to attract an audience.
    - Sebb767 4y ago
      You're missing the point: We (GP and I) don't think you need known actors. There are great series with (then) unknown actors. It's just strange to have such a massive budget (which usually would go, in part, to known actors and directors) and then forgo them. Also, for directors, there's definitely a case to be made that you need someone who can handle such a large budget. That's why I made the example with the junior engineer.
      - Clubber 4y ago
        Yes, some of the best titles have none or just 1 top tier actor at the time: Star Wars (Alec Guinness), West World (Anthony Hopkins), Game of Thrones (Sean Bean), Breaking Bad, The Wire. I'm sure there's other's I can't remember. Some directors prefer fresh actors for some movies. It s not necessarily a red flag, but it could be. Time will tell.
        verve_rat 4y ago
        But none of those had a budget this out of wack, that is the point being made here.
        adventured 4y ago
        Not a great list for that premise. The Amazon Lord series not only lacks stars, it lacks famous mid-tiers as well. West World had Ed Harris, Evan Rachel Wood, James Marsden, Thandie Newton, among others. These are mid tier actors that are quite well known (even though they're not superstars). Breaking Bad had as its lead a very prominent television actor in Cranston. Malcolm in the Middle was a hit tv show that had a long run as far as TV shows go. He was already very TV-famous prior to Breaking Bad. Getting Cranston to carry Breaking Bad was them going with a TV heavy-weight with tons of experience and a deep familiarity for TV audiences.
- prepend 4y ago
  I think that them going with directors they are happy with is precisely the problem. Amazon has cranked out a lot of mediocre tv shows that don’t have any significant greatness. What’s strange about these directors is that they haven’t directed anything I thought was good at all. The writers have uncredited writing credits on Flash Gordon and Star Trek Beyond [0]. I like those but it’s just strange that that’s all they have. Like that’s it. Not even a complete screenplay. I’d love to read the story of how they assembled this team that is free of PR. [0] https://www.imdb.com/filmosearch?role=nm4260438&job_type=writer https://www.imdb.com/filmosearch?role=nm4260438&job_type=wri...
  - Emma_Goldman 4y ago
    >"They are happy with is precisely the problem. Amazon has cranked out a lot of mediocre tv shows that don’t have any significant greatness." This - the fact that this is an Amazon production already tells us a great deal about what to expect. I have a low expectations for TV, but the Amazon catalogue has really plumbed new depths. It is an artistic wasteland. Just reading the title of this thread I therefore thought, 'How is this going to work out?' If you add to that the concerns of the OP, it does not look good.
- napkin 4y ago
  OP was simply pointing out that by the looks of it, the new series will not be helmed by any Auteur. Peter Jackson was a modern auteur and people's expectations for LotR have been set by his distinct style.
- karmasimida 4y ago
  It is easier to have unknown actors/actress to sign up for longer contract I believe. Such high-profile show is unlikely to use super expensive and well known actors/actress for big roles, due to budget and commitment issue.
pflenker 4y ago
As a huge ASOIAF fan, I had the same concerns after Game of Thrones was announced and first details were shared. The crucial difference, though, is that GRRM himself was involved in the series.
- Sebb767 4y ago
  And we all know how it ended once they ran out of his material. Yes, I'm still salty.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
    I never even bothered with Season 8.
    - Sebb767 4y ago
      And you'll be happier if you keep it that way :-) The only worse ending I know is that of How I Met Your Mother. Just skip the last two episodes there, seriously.
      - anshumankmr 4y ago
        The last season of Game of Thrones is genuinely the worst possible ending to the show and genuinely takes the top spot for the most disappointing ending of all time. At least,HIMYM had its defenders but I've never seen a good thing spoken about the story in the final season.
        Sebb767 4y ago
        This is subjective, of course. But for me, the ending of GoT just cast a shadow over the other seasons. It's a bit less thrilling to watch them now, since I know it will lead to an inevitable jumping of the shark, but I still like them as-is. The ending of HIMYM, on the other hand, completely ruined the series for me. I honestly have a harder time enjoying them, knowing the actual ending. That's why I think the ending of HIMYM is worse.
dr_dshiv 4y ago
Speculatively, is there some tax optimization purpose? Eg, if you invest in content that builds technology that could be used for other purposes? Amazon is pretty amazing at tax optimization. But R&D tax writeoffs are pretty great, so not sure what it would accomplish. hmm, so maybe this is just cover for the UFO skunkworks.
- kgwgk 4y ago
  > But R&D tax writeoffs are pretty great Great like salary tax writeoffs and rent tax writeoffs. (And even if R&D isn’t expensed right away it will still have the same impact on taxes in the end. Now it will be depreciated in five years in the US.)
- heurisko 4y ago
  I don't think it is the case here, but this happened in the UK. > Tax inspectors were told that A-listers from Hollywood were starring in a £19.6m production that would be shot in the UK. However, the movie was never made and the only footage shot was seven minutes of "completely unusable quality" filmed in a flat, which cost just £5,000. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/may/01/uk-film-executives-charged-fraud https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/may/01/uk-film-executi...
- youngtaff 4y ago
  It’s shocking how much Amazon are getting from the NZ government
cloutchaser 4y ago
LOTR, and also Peter Jackson are not compatible with modern media. LOTR is completely opposed storytelling wise to the current dogmas of postmodernism and equity, it's fundamentally a story based on old western/european/christian myths, basically what gets called white supremacy these days. I think this will turn out to be an absolute morbid tv series as it will force LOTR into the current dogmas, but this is probably why no-one is involved who was involved in the films, as those actually respected the original story.
- workingon 4y ago
  Never thought I’d live to see the day where people would unironically call equity dogma. But here we are. What a sad state of affairs.
  - cloutchaser 4y ago
    Equity means equality of outcome, basically meaning you believe every person is equal in their results. This is religious dogma, because it's just not true. We are not the same, and you will always have differences in outcome in society. If you cannot see this, you are trapped in religious level dogmatic thinking. (PS: if you want to talk about equality, which we might perhaps call equality of opportunity, I'm all for it. But equity is certainly not that).
    - adrianN 4y ago
      A charitable interpretation of what you call modern dogma is that people acknowledge that we're not all the same (that's what diversity is about, I think), but that the differences aren't predicted by gender or race or culture or whatever. That is of course also not very compatible with LotR.
      - cloutchaser 4y ago
        If they're not predicted by gender or race, then why do companies need 50% women? The very fact that that is a goal, means you do not believe these aren't predicted by race or gender, but that they are, and if you don't have 50% employees you are discriminating. Of course the people in favour also say what you just said, which just shows how completely conflicting their views are.
JCharante 4y ago
Why do known actors matter? When I see Chris Pratt in a movie I just think oh it's Andy from parks and rec. I see Forrest Gump but in a different movie or Jim Halbert in a horror movie. Known actors make it hard to be immersed.
- mikkergp 4y ago
  I think it’s not necessarily bad in it’s own, but no known actors + no known show runner + studio without a track record of success + IP without involvement of its creator and Vague primary sources(ie no specific written narrative to follow) seems like a risky combination.
- nicce 4y ago
  Nobody becomes known if they don’t have their first time. I think it is not bad at all.
  - synu 4y ago
    It's not necessarily bad if you have someone amazing in charge of casting, but it's really hard to build a cast out of people who nobody has heard of who it turns out are actually incredible talents. Known actors are a known quantity in that regard, which is why it's safer to go for them. Normally you'd expect there to be some on a big budget project that isn't taking risks around quality.
  - prepend 4y ago
    For me, it’s not that there are any unknown actors, it’s that every single one is unknown. I like seeing “fresh” actors because they are unknown. LOTR had many unknown actors and lots who later went on to notoriety (eg, Karl Urban). But they also had some known. My apprehension isn’t that there are any unknown, but that all are unknown. And I think that’s a bad thing for a $400M project. Kind of like startups. I’ve met some great people who were working for their first company ever. I’ve also worked with some terrible people who didn’t work out. To get small funding this happens all the time. But to get $465M in funding with a leadership team that’s entirely new is unusual.
- 4y ago
MisterTea 4y ago
> (Jackson had done Heavenly Creatures and Frighteners and a few others before LOTR) No one ever mentions his first, a splatter flick: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Taste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Taste Hilariously bad but a fun watch.
- synu 4y ago
  Meet the Feebles never seems to come up either.. one of the weirdest movies I've ever seen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meet_the_Feebles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meet_the_Feebles
  - MisterTea 4y ago
    I have yet to see it. I grabbed bad taste around 2005/6 via torrent after hearing a sound bite in a death metal song. I found out about Meet the Feebles but couldn't find a working torrent at the time and forgot about it. I'll have to remind myself to find and watch it one day.
- evanelias 4y ago
  I remember the "making of" extra on the Bad Taste DVD being great. Jackson's low-budget special effects are really quite impressive. I believe this is it on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POXwP4ucPe4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POXwP4ucPe4
titzer 4y ago
> And not to involve Jackson seems off Personally, the more I reflect on the Jackson series, the less I'm a fan. He borrowed heavily from the pacing, framing, and selectiveness of Bakshi's animated film, which didn't finish the trilogy. But worse, though inevitable when you have billions of $$ in your eyeballs, Jackson over-printed a lot of kids' imaginations with his depictions. I can't remember what I thought things looked like before I saw his films--and I probably read LOTR for the first time in 1993... And I'm not just "new stuff bad". But seriously, the source material looked way different in my head--and felt different, too. Especially the Hobbit. "Consult Jackson". Jackson had his say. He has no authority over new depictions; he didn't write a word of it.
- schnitzelstoat 4y ago
  I had read LOTR just before the movies came out and I think Jackson did a pretty good job, although the books have a different feel with all the walking bits and the songs etc. I agree 100% about The Hobbit though, the movie was pretty decent, but really feels very different to the book. I think this is expected though as they extended a pretty small book to an entire trilogy of films and adapted what is essentially a children's story for a far wider audience.
  - arethuza 4y ago
    As lots of people have noted... "thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread"
- mikkergp 4y ago
  I still love the original animated hobbit. The pacing was a mess, but there was something about the creativity in the animated films of the 70’s that we’ve lost I think. Wouldn’t translate to a modern audience, but I love that, i dunno I’ve been calling it “leather bound fantasy” feeling.
- ajmurmann 4y ago
  To me The Hobbit book was interesting in that it clearly was a link between fairy tales and what we now call the fantasy genre. Even in terms of writing style. It makes sense that that would have to be adjusted for the movie, especially since you'd want continuity in tone with the LOTR movies.
snarf21 4y ago
I'm not optimistic after they shat the bed on WoT. Turning epic fantasy into visual media content is hard work and they aren't spending the money in the right place. I'll check it out but my expectations are extremely low.
bshimmin 4y ago
I wouldn't say there's a big name star in there, but I've seen Peter Mullan in quite a few things, Nazanin Boniardi is moderately famous, Lenny Henry is definitely famous in the UK, and Morfydd Clark was tremendous recently in Saint Maud. As others have said, this doesn't necessarily matter too much.
hbosch 4y ago
>Also, I don’t recognize the actors at all. Like not a single one. Compared to LOTR, they didn’t rely on stars but they had Ian McKellen, Elijah Wood, Sean Aston, Viggo Mortenson, Liv Tyler, Christopher Lee, Sean Bean, Cate Blanchett. It seems strange to not have anyone. I thought this was a cost cutting effort, but that doesn’t make sense if $465M. Well, lets start off by admitting to ourselves that guys like Elijah Wood and Sean Astin in particular (heck, probably even Viggo Mortensen, at least in the USA) didn't really have strong resumes before Fellowship. As a kid, I don't think I could have told you who Orlando Bloom was before LOTR -- because he wasn't anybody. Secondly, when every major actor working today has either got fully hoovered into the Marvel or DC cinematic universes or is looking to exploit the next franchise with lopsided deals then yeah... I imagine it would make sense going with actors who have less "demand". You think about how Amazon is going to handle this show. The video component streaming on Prime Video, OK, sure. Game studios involvement, perhaps? Alexa skills and audio adventures? Integrated Fire device experiences of some kind? Unknown quantities of almost any digital content possible... it's much, much easier to get this kind of "360 degree" commitment from lesser known actors compared to, say, Timothee Chalamet as Frodo (or whatever). Also we ought to make sure we give credit to the lesser known actors, producers, directors, writers, stylists, designers and so on that create enthralling and award winning movies and TV shows every year! So let's at least give some of these people the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Taking chances on creative endeavors is one of the great things people do for others in this world.
- SeanLuke 4y ago
  Well... Sean Astin was Rudy.
  - frumper 4y ago
    Goonies never say die.
- OrvalWintermute 4y ago
  > Well, lets start off by admitting to ourselves that guys like Elijah Wood and Sean Astin in particular (heck, probably even Viggo Mortensen, at least in the USA) didn't really have strong resumes before Fellowship. As a kid, I don't think I could have told you who Orlando Bloom was before LOTR -- because he wasn't anybody. I agree with what you said largely, but not Viggo Mortensen https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001557/ https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001557/ Viggo was in a number of shows that would have American audiences familiar with his acting skills far before 2001. Most notably in my case https://youtu.be/Beogqr20uII?t=147 https://youtu.be/Beogqr20uII?t=147
tootie 4y ago
From what I've read, the show is basically guaranteed to run it's course which is 5 seasons. They probably gave the show runners some degree of long-term investment. They likely spent a ton on set design and character design to setup events that won't air for a few years.
KineticLensman 4y ago
> And not to involve Jackson seems off because even having him in a consulting role would be a good sign Not if The Hobbit is anything to go by.
dylan604 4y ago
>And not to involve Jackson seems off because even having him in a consulting role would be a good sign. Didn't the Tolkein group basically disavow Jackson and said never again after fiasco known as The Hobbit? If that's true, then it makes a lot of sense not to involve Jackson in any new project blessed by the Tolkein powers that be.
themitigating 4y ago
Harry potter movie changed directors a few times right? Amazon is getting a 160mil tax credit in NZ. Regarding the team: "The team who will be creating the “LOTR” TV series includes: executive producers Lindsey Weber (“10 Cloverfield Lane”), Bruce Richmond (“Game of Thrones”), Gene Kelly (“Boardwalk Empire”) and Sharon Tal Yguado; writer/executive producer Gennifer Hutchison (“Breaking Bad”); writer/executive producer Jason Cahill (“The Sopranos”) writer/executive producer Justin Doble (“Stranger Things”); consulting producers Bryan Cogman (“Game of Thrones”) and Stephany Folsom (“Toy Story 4”); producer Ron Ames (“The Aviator”); writer/co-producer Helen Shang (“Hannibal”) and writing consultant Glenise Mullins." So they have established people in the background and a well known franchise. As for not involving Peter Jackson maybe they just wanted to start fresh, no idea but George Lucas isn't involved of the Mandalorian
- cjwilliams 4y ago
  I think hiring Bryan Cogman is a red flag.
  - deadbunny 4y ago
    Why?
subsubzero 4y ago
Huge LOTR/Tolkien fan ever since I was a kid, loved the Ralph Bakashi animated LOTR film from the 70's(great rotoscoping and creepy mood), absolutely loved the Peter Jackson trilogy, liked the hobbit animated films Rankin and Bass(good music!, weird animation?), even found enjoyment in the newer Hobbit trilogy(3 movies for 1 small book? Smaug was great though!). After seeing this amazon trailer though I am beyond disappointed in what they are creating and with the budget they have it is really sad. I could be mistaken but I feel like this will be looked at as a gigantic flop for amazon. The story looks like its not even based on anything Tolkien written, which is beyond me given there are so many interesting tales Tolkien wrote that have not seen the screen(Beren and Luthien, the fall of Numenor, the silmarils and Elvish wars of the 1st age). And like the parent above mentioned it is alarming that the actors are all unheard of and there are no connections to the successful franchises that Peter Jackson created, where is this roughly half a billion going? The CGI looks lackluster so its not there.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  > there are so many interesting tales Tolkien wrote that have not seen the screen Beorn! Completely left out of the Hobbit movies https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Beorn https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Beorn
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - subsubzero 4y ago
    Beorn was in the 1st Hobbit briefly, but he could have more screen time! I forgot about one character that never saw the light of day in any film(cartoon or movie) Tom Bombodil, he was a strange character even for Tolkien's universe and was rumored to be a demi-god. I would rather see stories about him than what amazon is sending out.
    - thaumasiotes 4y ago
      > Tom Bomb[a]dil, he was a strange character even for Tolkien's universe and was rumored to be a demi-god. The theory is usually that he's one of the major gods, not a demigod. I feel like there was a Maia who mated with an elf, but I don't remember with any certainty. Demigods aren't a major feature of the world. EDIT: https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Melian https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Melian is the Maia who mated with an elf. Their daughter, Luthien, is a normal elf, in much the same way that Elrond is a normal elf while Elros is a normal Numenorean. (Though Luthien doesn't seem to have been given a choice.)
auggierose 4y ago
Given this other recent fantasy show on prime was just horrible, I am not surprised by this. Strangely, a lot of people liked it! Maybe it is going to be the same here. Don't even remember the name of this other show.
- istjohn 4y ago
  Wheel of Time. I enjoyed it.
  - Semaphor 4y ago
    Same, but then I also never read the books.
    - auggierose 4y ago
      Didn't read the books either. Just such a badly written show with horrible actors.
      - Semaphor 4y ago
        Yeah, I’ll disagree there, it’s decently written with good actors. Far worse shows out there, like everything from MCU.
        auggierose 4y ago
        We clearly have different tastes. I really liked Loki, for example. And I even enjoy Miss Marvel!
jowday 4y ago
> Looking at the imdb page this seems like a corporate driven project rather than a creator driven project with lots of different directors that haven’t don’t anything remarkable and seem to have just done other Amazon shows. With the exception of, say, the first season of True Detective, most TV shows use multiple directors. The director on a TV show is usually in charge of the technical execution of the writers script - they’re not making many creative decisions the way a movie director does. The creative authority on a TV show generally rests on the lead writer(s), not the directors. When people talk about the Sopranos, they talk about David Chase; Breaking Bad, Vince Gilligan. And in both of those cases they had teams of writers under them who would write different episodes. This didn’t stop those shows from having a strong auteur-driven vision. In the case of the LotR show, the lead writers are JD Payne and Patrick McKay. I think they’re passionate about Tolkien from what I’ve read. Look them up if you want to know more.
- jollybean 4y ago
  In TV 'Mr. Big' is usually the 'Showrunner'. Basically the original creators. It's like a form of creative production and management. For film, the Director is often kind of the version of 'Showrunner'. If the director was the one doing the pitching, raising the money - they they are that. If it's a big IP asset, like Star Treck, then it's different, sometimes a team effort. Like Kathleen Kennedy is the 'Big Honcho' for Star Wars and will have absolutely the 'last word' on everything, directors may not. Directors may have to negotiate their degree of freedom and may really want to avoid those situations where they are 'not in control', and will be forced to 'take notes'. So 'director', depending on the type of show, does not have to be the most critical thing, it really depends. Something that's heavily dependent on the quality of the acting, probably the director will matter a lot. A perfunctory serial, a bit less. For something so fundamentally institutionalized, like 'The Big Bang Theory' I'll bet you could remove almost any single person, and the gap would be filled in by the others who are all professionals. Like literally a child could direct an episode, because everyone would know 'what to do'. But yeah, it helps to have a 'core creative team' that has track record of resonance, this way, you have an idea of what you will get. Cohen Brothers, Villeneuve, Tom Cruise Inc., they use a lot of the same people. So you have less risk.
smsm42 4y ago
I don't think having the names recognizable is a sign of anything. If you look into the history of what are the iconic classic movies now, you'd see that it's not unusual to have people who are either relatively unknown or nothing special to come into one great movie and have a spectacular career afterwards. Great movie can launch an actor, but great actor alone can rarely save a bad movie. I am much more concerned about show's creators attempts to "improve" Tolkien and turn it into a Platform(TM) for the Message(TM), instead of concentrating on telling a good story using the material Tolkien left us. That, unfortunately, is not an uncommon occurrence nowdays. If that happens, the series is doomed to mediocrity or worse, regardless of which names are attached to it or how much is spent on it. Still, we obviously have to see it before making any judgement.
tptacek 4y ago
Having Jackson even nominally involved in the project would be a pretty terrible sign for me, after the Hobbit fiasco (which in turn colored my appraisal of ROTK and, in particular, the extended LOTR editions). As for the writer's room on this show, it looks solid to me: * Jason Cahill wrote a bunch of episodes for The Sopranos * Justin Doble wrote 4 episodes in S1 and S2 of Stranger Things, and those are the only two good seasons of Stranger Things * Gennifer Hutchison won a WGA award for her work on Breaking Bad, which is one of the best shows ever to air * Bryan Cogman wrote 11(!) episodes of Game of Thrones * Stephany Folsom was a writer on Toy Story 4 and Thor: Ragnarak The two show-runners (JD Payne and Patrick McKay) are people I'm not familiar with, but so was DB Weiss before Game of Thrones. Except for Sean Bean, I didn't know any of the GOT actors either; they're all famous for GOT now. The Amazon LOTR show could be a debacle, but it won't be because they chintzed out on actors.
- JauntyHatAngle 4y ago
  Minor quibble, but add Charles Dance to your big name actors list. I can't think of any others though... dinklage was kind of known I guess?
- chaostheory 4y ago
  Agree with Jackson being terrible to even have on for consulting due to what he did to The Hobbit. I wasn’t happy with what he did with some key scenes in LOTR either. I feel the main reason he was left out though is because there might be animosity between him and the Tolkien family in terms of art direction.
  - manmal 4y ago
    The Hobbit production was so heavily rushed, I wouldn’t hold the quality issues against Jackson.
    - chaostheory 4y ago
      The story was butchered. In his defense it makes sense from the box office perspective. The masses need excitement and spectacle. The original Hobbit story doesn’t have that. It’s more low key.
the_lonely_road 4y ago
They are probably hoping this is season 1 of 10 of a breakout show. Impossible to do that if you use famous actors in season 1 (unless they die in season 1 like Sean Bean in Game of Thrones) because they will all be demanding untenable salaries by season 3 killing the shows ability to continue. I’m stoked for such a high budget fantasy show to be coming out and don’t really care how true to Tolkien it is so long as the story and characters are compelling.
HWR_14 4y ago
> I don’t recognize the actors at all. That's a good sign. First, there are far more great actors than famous actors. Second, that's how you get someone to make a 7 season (or longer) commitment. Look at the MCU. They don't get A-listers (except Ryan Reynolds), they make them in return for an N-movie commitment. The MCU also seemed to transition to hiring lesser-known directors, etc. so they could be trusted to be willing to follow the directions from corporate. I don't particularly need something done super-artistically. I need a long-running series to be managed well. Otherwise you end up with all the situations where the series takes an abrupt turn and fucks itself up.
slightwinder 4y ago
> And not to involve Jackson seems off because even having him in a consulting role would be a good sign. Probably better that way. The project has no right for the 3rd age, meaning the stories of the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit-Books, where Jacksons main-expertise is. Not having him involved is just safer for the legal side.
whiddershins 4y ago
Sometimes a director prefers unknown actors so the audience doesn’t have an existing association with them.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> But it seems odd to spend so much and not have a single established creator that has put out great content. And not to involve Jackson seems off because even having him in a consulting role would be a good sign. Wasn't the estate’s unhappiness with Jackson’s work (either genuine or as part of the long rights war) a big part of that?
spoonjim 4y ago
The established creator thing is so important. For things where the parameters of success are hard to define (what makes a hit movie?) there is no good marker of skill other than having done it before.
TrapLord_Rhodo 4y ago
This is a bezos driven project. He has said he loves LOTR. Take that how you will, but i'm sure Bezos is directly involved, especially with the budget so high.
kurupt213 4y ago
Not involving Jackson, the guy who wanted to put Aragorn in the Hobbit, sounds like a good idea
didntknowya 4y ago
Amazon investing in the LOTR world (with an established fan base) I would think it's less risky than Netflix's strategy of burning hundreds of millions on famous producers without any criteria than just to produce something good- more often than not being misses rather than hits.
t0bia_s 4y ago
"this seems like a corporate driven project rather than a creator driven project" This. It is made for profit, not for content. Disney ruined Star Wars, Netflix ruined The Witcher, now Amazon goes for LOTR... Dark ages of cinema.

cgeier 4y ago

While I'm not particularly looking forward to this series, having rather unknown actors isn't putting me off at all. And why shouldn't they go with directors they are happy with? TV series often have a lot of different directors, often directing just a single episode of a season or even a series.

oneoff786 4y ago
TV series are often bad though. You can often see drastic dips in episode quality. Do they really know what they’re doing with these directors?
Sebb767 4y ago
The budget-talent-ratio just seems off. Usually, movies spend a lot of money on hiring talent, which here clearly isn't the case here. So the question is where is that money going. Grandparent and I are afraid that we end with something graphically completely overproduced and no story. Also, if you provide a junior engineer with a few million, you can't expect perfect software, even with that budget. Same reservations apply here.
- newsclues 4y ago
  In Hollywood you don’t always hire people for talent but branding and audience awareness. If you have a brand like the Hobbit you don’t need brand name actors or directors to attract an audience.
  - Sebb767 4y ago
    You're missing the point: We (GP and I) don't think you need known actors. There are great series with (then) unknown actors. It's just strange to have such a massive budget (which usually would go, in part, to known actors and directors) and then forgo them. Also, for directors, there's definitely a case to be made that you need someone who can handle such a large budget. That's why I made the example with the junior engineer.
    - Clubber 4y ago
      Yes, some of the best titles have none or just 1 top tier actor at the time: Star Wars (Alec Guinness), West World (Anthony Hopkins), Game of Thrones (Sean Bean), Breaking Bad, The Wire. I'm sure there's other's I can't remember. Some directors prefer fresh actors for some movies. It s not necessarily a red flag, but it could be. Time will tell.
      - verve_rat 4y ago
        But none of those had a budget this out of wack, that is the point being made here.
      - adventured 4y ago
        Not a great list for that premise. The Amazon Lord series not only lacks stars, it lacks famous mid-tiers as well. West World had Ed Harris, Evan Rachel Wood, James Marsden, Thandie Newton, among others. These are mid tier actors that are quite well known (even though they're not superstars). Breaking Bad had as its lead a very prominent television actor in Cranston. Malcolm in the Middle was a hit tv show that had a long run as far as TV shows go. He was already very TV-famous prior to Breaking Bad. Getting Cranston to carry Breaking Bad was them going with a TV heavy-weight with tons of experience and a deep familiarity for TV audiences.
prepend 4y ago
I think that them going with directors they are happy with is precisely the problem. Amazon has cranked out a lot of mediocre tv shows that don’t have any significant greatness. What’s strange about these directors is that they haven’t directed anything I thought was good at all. The writers have uncredited writing credits on Flash Gordon and Star Trek Beyond [0]. I like those but it’s just strange that that’s all they have. Like that’s it. Not even a complete screenplay. I’d love to read the story of how they assembled this team that is free of PR. [0] https://www.imdb.com/filmosearch?role=nm4260438&job_type=writer https://www.imdb.com/filmosearch?role=nm4260438&job_type=wri...
- Emma_Goldman 4y ago
  >"They are happy with is precisely the problem. Amazon has cranked out a lot of mediocre tv shows that don’t have any significant greatness." This - the fact that this is an Amazon production already tells us a great deal about what to expect. I have a low expectations for TV, but the Amazon catalogue has really plumbed new depths. It is an artistic wasteland. Just reading the title of this thread I therefore thought, 'How is this going to work out?' If you add to that the concerns of the OP, it does not look good.
napkin 4y ago
OP was simply pointing out that by the looks of it, the new series will not be helmed by any Auteur. Peter Jackson was a modern auteur and people's expectations for LotR have been set by his distinct style.
karmasimida 4y ago
It is easier to have unknown actors/actress to sign up for longer contract I believe. Such high-profile show is unlikely to use super expensive and well known actors/actress for big roles, due to budget and commitment issue.

pflenker 4y ago

As a huge ASOIAF fan, I had the same concerns after Game of Thrones was announced and first details were shared. The crucial difference, though, is that GRRM himself was involved in the series.

Sebb767 4y ago
And we all know how it ended once they ran out of his material. Yes, I'm still salty.
- ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
  I never even bothered with Season 8.
  - Sebb767 4y ago
    And you'll be happier if you keep it that way :-) The only worse ending I know is that of How I Met Your Mother. Just skip the last two episodes there, seriously.
    - anshumankmr 4y ago
      The last season of Game of Thrones is genuinely the worst possible ending to the show and genuinely takes the top spot for the most disappointing ending of all time. At least,HIMYM had its defenders but I've never seen a good thing spoken about the story in the final season.
      - Sebb767 4y ago
        This is subjective, of course. But for me, the ending of GoT just cast a shadow over the other seasons. It's a bit less thrilling to watch them now, since I know it will lead to an inevitable jumping of the shark, but I still like them as-is. The ending of HIMYM, on the other hand, completely ruined the series for me. I honestly have a harder time enjoying them, knowing the actual ending. That's why I think the ending of HIMYM is worse.

dr_dshiv 4y ago

Speculatively, is there some tax optimization purpose? Eg, if you invest in content that builds technology that could be used for other purposes? Amazon is pretty amazing at tax optimization. But R&D tax writeoffs are pretty great, so not sure what it would accomplish. hmm, so maybe this is just cover for the UFO skunkworks.

kgwgk 4y ago
> But R&D tax writeoffs are pretty great Great like salary tax writeoffs and rent tax writeoffs. (And even if R&D isn’t expensed right away it will still have the same impact on taxes in the end. Now it will be depreciated in five years in the US.)
heurisko 4y ago
I don't think it is the case here, but this happened in the UK. > Tax inspectors were told that A-listers from Hollywood were starring in a £19.6m production that would be shot in the UK. However, the movie was never made and the only footage shot was seven minutes of "completely unusable quality" filmed in a flat, which cost just £5,000. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/may/01/uk-film-executives-charged-fraud https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/may/01/uk-film-executi...
youngtaff 4y ago
It’s shocking how much Amazon are getting from the NZ government

cloutchaser 4y ago

LOTR, and also Peter Jackson are not compatible with modern media. LOTR is completely opposed storytelling wise to the current dogmas of postmodernism and equity, it's fundamentally a story based on old western/european/christian myths, basically what gets called white supremacy these days. I think this will turn out to be an absolute morbid tv series as it will force LOTR into the current dogmas, but this is probably why no-one is involved who was involved in the films, as those actually respected the original story.

workingon 4y ago
Never thought I’d live to see the day where people would unironically call equity dogma. But here we are. What a sad state of affairs.
- cloutchaser 4y ago
  Equity means equality of outcome, basically meaning you believe every person is equal in their results. This is religious dogma, because it's just not true. We are not the same, and you will always have differences in outcome in society. If you cannot see this, you are trapped in religious level dogmatic thinking. (PS: if you want to talk about equality, which we might perhaps call equality of opportunity, I'm all for it. But equity is certainly not that).
  - adrianN 4y ago
    A charitable interpretation of what you call modern dogma is that people acknowledge that we're not all the same (that's what diversity is about, I think), but that the differences aren't predicted by gender or race or culture or whatever. That is of course also not very compatible with LotR.
    - cloutchaser 4y ago
      If they're not predicted by gender or race, then why do companies need 50% women? The very fact that that is a goal, means you do not believe these aren't predicted by race or gender, but that they are, and if you don't have 50% employees you are discriminating. Of course the people in favour also say what you just said, which just shows how completely conflicting their views are.

JCharante 4y ago

Why do known actors matter? When I see Chris Pratt in a movie I just think oh it's Andy from parks and rec. I see Forrest Gump but in a different movie or Jim Halbert in a horror movie. Known actors make it hard to be immersed.

mikkergp 4y ago
I think it’s not necessarily bad in it’s own, but no known actors + no known show runner + studio without a track record of success + IP without involvement of its creator and Vague primary sources(ie no specific written narrative to follow) seems like a risky combination.
nicce 4y ago
Nobody becomes known if they don’t have their first time. I think it is not bad at all.
- synu 4y ago
  It's not necessarily bad if you have someone amazing in charge of casting, but it's really hard to build a cast out of people who nobody has heard of who it turns out are actually incredible talents. Known actors are a known quantity in that regard, which is why it's safer to go for them. Normally you'd expect there to be some on a big budget project that isn't taking risks around quality.
- prepend 4y ago
  For me, it’s not that there are any unknown actors, it’s that every single one is unknown. I like seeing “fresh” actors because they are unknown. LOTR had many unknown actors and lots who later went on to notoriety (eg, Karl Urban). But they also had some known. My apprehension isn’t that there are any unknown, but that all are unknown. And I think that’s a bad thing for a $400M project. Kind of like startups. I’ve met some great people who were working for their first company ever. I’ve also worked with some terrible people who didn’t work out. To get small funding this happens all the time. But to get $465M in funding with a leadership team that’s entirely new is unusual.
4y ago

MisterTea 4y ago

> (Jackson had done Heavenly Creatures and Frighteners and a few others before LOTR) No one ever mentions his first, a splatter flick: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Taste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Taste Hilariously bad but a fun watch.

synu 4y ago
Meet the Feebles never seems to come up either.. one of the weirdest movies I've ever seen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meet_the_Feebles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meet_the_Feebles
- MisterTea 4y ago
  I have yet to see it. I grabbed bad taste around 2005/6 via torrent after hearing a sound bite in a death metal song. I found out about Meet the Feebles but couldn't find a working torrent at the time and forgot about it. I'll have to remind myself to find and watch it one day.
evanelias 4y ago
I remember the "making of" extra on the Bad Taste DVD being great. Jackson's low-budget special effects are really quite impressive. I believe this is it on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POXwP4ucPe4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POXwP4ucPe4

titzer 4y ago

> And not to involve Jackson seems off Personally, the more I reflect on the Jackson series, the less I'm a fan. He borrowed heavily from the pacing, framing, and selectiveness of Bakshi's animated film, which didn't finish the trilogy. But worse, though inevitable when you have billions of $$ in your eyeballs, Jackson over-printed a lot of kids' imaginations with his depictions. I can't remember what I thought things looked like before I saw his films--and I probably read LOTR for the first time in 1993... And I'm not just "new stuff bad". But seriously, the source material looked way different in my head--and felt different, too. Especially the Hobbit. "Consult Jackson". Jackson had his say. He has no authority over new depictions; he didn't write a word of it.

schnitzelstoat 4y ago
I had read LOTR just before the movies came out and I think Jackson did a pretty good job, although the books have a different feel with all the walking bits and the songs etc. I agree 100% about The Hobbit though, the movie was pretty decent, but really feels very different to the book. I think this is expected though as they extended a pretty small book to an entire trilogy of films and adapted what is essentially a children's story for a far wider audience.
- arethuza 4y ago
  As lots of people have noted... "thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread"
mikkergp 4y ago
I still love the original animated hobbit. The pacing was a mess, but there was something about the creativity in the animated films of the 70’s that we’ve lost I think. Wouldn’t translate to a modern audience, but I love that, i dunno I’ve been calling it “leather bound fantasy” feeling.
ajmurmann 4y ago
To me The Hobbit book was interesting in that it clearly was a link between fairy tales and what we now call the fantasy genre. Even in terms of writing style. It makes sense that that would have to be adjusted for the movie, especially since you'd want continuity in tone with the LOTR movies.

snarf21 4y ago

I'm not optimistic after they shat the bed on WoT. Turning epic fantasy into visual media content is hard work and they aren't spending the money in the right place. I'll check it out but my expectations are extremely low.

bshimmin 4y ago

I wouldn't say there's a big name star in there, but I've seen Peter Mullan in quite a few things, Nazanin Boniardi is moderately famous, Lenny Henry is definitely famous in the UK, and Morfydd Clark was tremendous recently in Saint Maud. As others have said, this doesn't necessarily matter too much.

hbosch 4y ago

>Also, I don’t recognize the actors at all. Like not a single one. Compared to LOTR, they didn’t rely on stars but they had Ian McKellen, Elijah Wood, Sean Aston, Viggo Mortenson, Liv Tyler, Christopher Lee, Sean Bean, Cate Blanchett. It seems strange to not have anyone. I thought this was a cost cutting effort, but that doesn’t make sense if $465M. Well, lets start off by admitting to ourselves that guys like Elijah Wood and Sean Astin in particular (heck, probably even Viggo Mortensen, at least in the USA) didn't really have strong resumes before Fellowship. As a kid, I don't think I could have told you who Orlando Bloom was before LOTR -- because he wasn't anybody. Secondly, when every major actor working today has either got fully hoovered into the Marvel or DC cinematic universes or is looking to exploit the next franchise with lopsided deals then yeah... I imagine it would make sense going with actors who have less "demand". You think about how Amazon is going to handle this show. The video component streaming on Prime Video, OK, sure. Game studios involvement, perhaps? Alexa skills and audio adventures? Integrated Fire device experiences of some kind? Unknown quantities of almost any digital content possible... it's much, much easier to get this kind of "360 degree" commitment from lesser known actors compared to, say, Timothee Chalamet as Frodo (or whatever). Also we ought to make sure we give credit to the lesser known actors, producers, directors, writers, stylists, designers and so on that create enthralling and award winning movies and TV shows every year! So let's at least give some of these people the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Taking chances on creative endeavors is one of the great things people do for others in this world.

SeanLuke 4y ago
Well... Sean Astin was Rudy.
- frumper 4y ago
  Goonies never say die.
OrvalWintermute 4y ago
> Well, lets start off by admitting to ourselves that guys like Elijah Wood and Sean Astin in particular (heck, probably even Viggo Mortensen, at least in the USA) didn't really have strong resumes before Fellowship. As a kid, I don't think I could have told you who Orlando Bloom was before LOTR -- because he wasn't anybody. I agree with what you said largely, but not Viggo Mortensen https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001557/ https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001557/ Viggo was in a number of shows that would have American audiences familiar with his acting skills far before 2001. Most notably in my case https://youtu.be/Beogqr20uII?t=147 https://youtu.be/Beogqr20uII?t=147

tootie 4y ago

From what I've read, the show is basically guaranteed to run it's course which is 5 seasons. They probably gave the show runners some degree of long-term investment. They likely spent a ton on set design and character design to setup events that won't air for a few years.

KineticLensman 4y ago

> And not to involve Jackson seems off because even having him in a consulting role would be a good sign Not if The Hobbit is anything to go by.

dylan604 4y ago

>And not to involve Jackson seems off because even having him in a consulting role would be a good sign. Didn't the Tolkein group basically disavow Jackson and said never again after fiasco known as The Hobbit? If that's true, then it makes a lot of sense not to involve Jackson in any new project blessed by the Tolkein powers that be.

themitigating 4y ago

Harry potter movie changed directors a few times right? Amazon is getting a 160mil tax credit in NZ. Regarding the team: "The team who will be creating the “LOTR” TV series includes: executive producers Lindsey Weber (“10 Cloverfield Lane”), Bruce Richmond (“Game of Thrones”), Gene Kelly (“Boardwalk Empire”) and Sharon Tal Yguado; writer/executive producer Gennifer Hutchison (“Breaking Bad”); writer/executive producer Jason Cahill (“The Sopranos”) writer/executive producer Justin Doble (“Stranger Things”); consulting producers Bryan Cogman (“Game of Thrones”) and Stephany Folsom (“Toy Story 4”); producer Ron Ames (“The Aviator”); writer/co-producer Helen Shang (“Hannibal”) and writing consultant Glenise Mullins." So they have established people in the background and a well known franchise. As for not involving Peter Jackson maybe they just wanted to start fresh, no idea but George Lucas isn't involved of the Mandalorian

cjwilliams 4y ago
I think hiring Bryan Cogman is a red flag.
- deadbunny 4y ago
  Why?

subsubzero 4y ago

Huge LOTR/Tolkien fan ever since I was a kid, loved the Ralph Bakashi animated LOTR film from the 70's(great rotoscoping and creepy mood), absolutely loved the Peter Jackson trilogy, liked the hobbit animated films Rankin and Bass(good music!, weird animation?), even found enjoyment in the newer Hobbit trilogy(3 movies for 1 small book? Smaug was great though!). After seeing this amazon trailer though I am beyond disappointed in what they are creating and with the budget they have it is really sad. I could be mistaken but I feel like this will be looked at as a gigantic flop for amazon. The story looks like its not even based on anything Tolkien written, which is beyond me given there are so many interesting tales Tolkien wrote that have not seen the screen(Beren and Luthien, the fall of Numenor, the silmarils and Elvish wars of the 1st age). And like the parent above mentioned it is alarming that the actors are all unheard of and there are no connections to the successful franchises that Peter Jackson created, where is this roughly half a billion going? The CGI looks lackluster so its not there.

TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
> there are so many interesting tales Tolkien wrote that have not seen the screen Beorn! Completely left out of the Hobbit movies https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Beorn https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Beorn
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- subsubzero 4y ago
  Beorn was in the 1st Hobbit briefly, but he could have more screen time! I forgot about one character that never saw the light of day in any film(cartoon or movie) Tom Bombodil, he was a strange character even for Tolkien's universe and was rumored to be a demi-god. I would rather see stories about him than what amazon is sending out.
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    > Tom Bomb[a]dil, he was a strange character even for Tolkien's universe and was rumored to be a demi-god. The theory is usually that he's one of the major gods, not a demigod. I feel like there was a Maia who mated with an elf, but I don't remember with any certainty. Demigods aren't a major feature of the world. EDIT: https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Melian https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Melian is the Maia who mated with an elf. Their daughter, Luthien, is a normal elf, in much the same way that Elrond is a normal elf while Elros is a normal Numenorean. (Though Luthien doesn't seem to have been given a choice.)

auggierose 4y ago

Given this other recent fantasy show on prime was just horrible, I am not surprised by this. Strangely, a lot of people liked it! Maybe it is going to be the same here. Don't even remember the name of this other show.

istjohn 4y ago
Wheel of Time. I enjoyed it.
- Semaphor 4y ago
  Same, but then I also never read the books.
  - auggierose 4y ago
    Didn't read the books either. Just such a badly written show with horrible actors.
    - Semaphor 4y ago
      Yeah, I’ll disagree there, it’s decently written with good actors. Far worse shows out there, like everything from MCU.
      - auggierose 4y ago
        We clearly have different tastes. I really liked Loki, for example. And I even enjoy Miss Marvel!

jowday 4y ago

> Looking at the imdb page this seems like a corporate driven project rather than a creator driven project with lots of different directors that haven’t don’t anything remarkable and seem to have just done other Amazon shows. With the exception of, say, the first season of True Detective, most TV shows use multiple directors. The director on a TV show is usually in charge of the technical execution of the writers script - they’re not making many creative decisions the way a movie director does. The creative authority on a TV show generally rests on the lead writer(s), not the directors. When people talk about the Sopranos, they talk about David Chase; Breaking Bad, Vince Gilligan. And in both of those cases they had teams of writers under them who would write different episodes. This didn’t stop those shows from having a strong auteur-driven vision. In the case of the LotR show, the lead writers are JD Payne and Patrick McKay. I think they’re passionate about Tolkien from what I’ve read. Look them up if you want to know more.

jollybean 4y ago
In TV 'Mr. Big' is usually the 'Showrunner'. Basically the original creators. It's like a form of creative production and management. For film, the Director is often kind of the version of 'Showrunner'. If the director was the one doing the pitching, raising the money - they they are that. If it's a big IP asset, like Star Treck, then it's different, sometimes a team effort. Like Kathleen Kennedy is the 'Big Honcho' for Star Wars and will have absolutely the 'last word' on everything, directors may not. Directors may have to negotiate their degree of freedom and may really want to avoid those situations where they are 'not in control', and will be forced to 'take notes'. So 'director', depending on the type of show, does not have to be the most critical thing, it really depends. Something that's heavily dependent on the quality of the acting, probably the director will matter a lot. A perfunctory serial, a bit less. For something so fundamentally institutionalized, like 'The Big Bang Theory' I'll bet you could remove almost any single person, and the gap would be filled in by the others who are all professionals. Like literally a child could direct an episode, because everyone would know 'what to do'. But yeah, it helps to have a 'core creative team' that has track record of resonance, this way, you have an idea of what you will get. Cohen Brothers, Villeneuve, Tom Cruise Inc., they use a lot of the same people. So you have less risk.

smsm42 4y ago

I don't think having the names recognizable is a sign of anything. If you look into the history of what are the iconic classic movies now, you'd see that it's not unusual to have people who are either relatively unknown or nothing special to come into one great movie and have a spectacular career afterwards. Great movie can launch an actor, but great actor alone can rarely save a bad movie. I am much more concerned about show's creators attempts to "improve" Tolkien and turn it into a Platform(TM) for the Message(TM), instead of concentrating on telling a good story using the material Tolkien left us. That, unfortunately, is not an uncommon occurrence nowdays. If that happens, the series is doomed to mediocrity or worse, regardless of which names are attached to it or how much is spent on it. Still, we obviously have to see it before making any judgement.

tptacek 4y ago

Having Jackson even nominally involved in the project would be a pretty terrible sign for me, after the Hobbit fiasco (which in turn colored my appraisal of ROTK and, in particular, the extended LOTR editions). As for the writer's room on this show, it looks solid to me: * Jason Cahill wrote a bunch of episodes for The Sopranos * Justin Doble wrote 4 episodes in S1 and S2 of Stranger Things, and those are the only two good seasons of Stranger Things * Gennifer Hutchison won a WGA award for her work on Breaking Bad, which is one of the best shows ever to air * Bryan Cogman wrote 11(!) episodes of Game of Thrones * Stephany Folsom was a writer on Toy Story 4 and Thor: Ragnarak The two show-runners (JD Payne and Patrick McKay) are people I'm not familiar with, but so was DB Weiss before Game of Thrones. Except for Sean Bean, I didn't know any of the GOT actors either; they're all famous for GOT now. The Amazon LOTR show could be a debacle, but it won't be because they chintzed out on actors.

JauntyHatAngle 4y ago
Minor quibble, but add Charles Dance to your big name actors list. I can't think of any others though... dinklage was kind of known I guess?
chaostheory 4y ago
Agree with Jackson being terrible to even have on for consulting due to what he did to The Hobbit. I wasn’t happy with what he did with some key scenes in LOTR either. I feel the main reason he was left out though is because there might be animosity between him and the Tolkien family in terms of art direction.
- manmal 4y ago
  The Hobbit production was so heavily rushed, I wouldn’t hold the quality issues against Jackson.
  - chaostheory 4y ago
    The story was butchered. In his defense it makes sense from the box office perspective. The masses need excitement and spectacle. The original Hobbit story doesn’t have that. It’s more low key.

the_lonely_road 4y ago

They are probably hoping this is season 1 of 10 of a breakout show. Impossible to do that if you use famous actors in season 1 (unless they die in season 1 like Sean Bean in Game of Thrones) because they will all be demanding untenable salaries by season 3 killing the shows ability to continue. I’m stoked for such a high budget fantasy show to be coming out and don’t really care how true to Tolkien it is so long as the story and characters are compelling.

HWR_14 4y ago

> I don’t recognize the actors at all. That's a good sign. First, there are far more great actors than famous actors. Second, that's how you get someone to make a 7 season (or longer) commitment. Look at the MCU. They don't get A-listers (except Ryan Reynolds), they make them in return for an N-movie commitment. The MCU also seemed to transition to hiring lesser-known directors, etc. so they could be trusted to be willing to follow the directions from corporate. I don't particularly need something done super-artistically. I need a long-running series to be managed well. Otherwise you end up with all the situations where the series takes an abrupt turn and fucks itself up.

slightwinder 4y ago

> And not to involve Jackson seems off because even having him in a consulting role would be a good sign. Probably better that way. The project has no right for the 3rd age, meaning the stories of the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit-Books, where Jacksons main-expertise is. Not having him involved is just safer for the legal side.

whiddershins 4y ago

Sometimes a director prefers unknown actors so the audience doesn’t have an existing association with them.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> But it seems odd to spend so much and not have a single established creator that has put out great content. And not to involve Jackson seems off because even having him in a consulting role would be a good sign. Wasn't the estate’s unhappiness with Jackson’s work (either genuine or as part of the long rights war) a big part of that?

spoonjim 4y ago

The established creator thing is so important. For things where the parameters of success are hard to define (what makes a hit movie?) there is no good marker of skill other than having done it before.

TrapLord_Rhodo 4y ago

This is a bezos driven project. He has said he loves LOTR. Take that how you will, but i'm sure Bezos is directly involved, especially with the budget so high.

kurupt213 4y ago

Not involving Jackson, the guy who wanted to put Aragorn in the Hobbit, sounds like a good idea

didntknowya 4y ago

Amazon investing in the LOTR world (with an established fan base) I would think it's less risky than Netflix's strategy of burning hundreds of millions on famous producers without any criteria than just to produce something good- more often than not being misses rather than hits.

t0bia_s 4y ago

"this seems like a corporate driven project rather than a creator driven project" This. It is made for profit, not for content. Disney ruined Star Wars, Netflix ruined The Witcher, now Amazon goes for LOTR... Dark ages of cinema.