To me what seems really weird about all this are all the attempts to "franchise" LOTR that fundamentally misunderstand the property by taking what seems to be a

To me what seems really weird about all this are all the attempts to "franchise" LOTR that fundamentally misunderstand the property by taking what seems to be a core idea of the setting, when it really isn't. The idea behind LOTR is that Tolkien tried to create a modern "mythos". The guy drew on and expanded a lot from existing mythology and folklore (especially Norse myths) when creating the setting of LOTR/the Hobbit. Trying to keep the story of LOTR focused on the One Ring and all the other attached rings seems... wrong? In the grand scheme of things, Sauron is a fairly minor villain of the setting, he's merely a high ranking general of Morgoth/Melkor (name depends on the published version of Return of the King where he gets namedropped once, Morgoth being the one used later and the intended one). The rings are just the instrument Sauron used to try and gain power. Other stories don't have to keep focusing on the rings, in fact, they're probably more interesting when they don't. The other book written by Tolkien, The Hobbit (the book, not the movies) understood this; the One Ring provokes mystery but ultimately is just a tool for the actual narrative which is Bilbo and the dwarves restoring the dwarven kingdom. Sauron doesn't even play a role in it! If someone wanted to expand on something in the "mythos" of LOTR, then it'd be much better to just... tell a new story and tie it through sharing locations and maybe a few background characters instead of fawning over The One Ring constantly. That story has been told. Tell a different story, there's plenty of possible "room" to fit it in, even if you don't own the rights to the Silmarillion. But who am I kidding, that idea would never make it past a Marketing Executive who wants to milk the original story for what it's worth by overfocusing on stuff that doesn't need to be focused on.