Why We're Worried About The New Warner Bros. Lord Of The Rings Movies
It wasn't terribly long ago that the Sackville-Baggins, err, Warner Bros. Discovery announced that they were planning on expanding their Middle-earth franchise into more films than just the six live-action Peter Jackson films. With both "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Hobbit" trilogies grossing about $6 billion combined during their theatrical runs, it's not hard to understand why the studio might want to cash in for more, especially after the unceremonious end of its most recent live-action franchise, the DC Extended Universe.
"Twenty years ago, New Line took an unprecedented leap of faith to realize the incredible stories, characters and world of 'The Lord of the Rings' on the big screen," penned executives Mike De Luca and Pam Abdy in a statement. "The result was a landmark series of films that have been embraced by generations of fans. But for all the scope and detail lovingly packed into the two trilogies, the vast, complex and dazzling universe dreamed up by J.R.R. Tolkien remains largely unexplored on film."
While all of that sounds good on the surface (who doesn't want more from Middle-earth?), we have some serious doubts about how WBD might continue the "Lord of the Rings" story into a new series of films. It's not like there's a direct sequel to Tolkien's epic high fantasy trilogy, and many of the beloved characters from the films have completed their character arcs. To say we're a little concerned might be an understatement. Here's why.
The main story is done
The biggest story told in J.R.R. Tolkien's fantasy world is undoubtedly "The Lord of the Rings." This epic trilogy (which technically consists of six "books," two per installment) marks the end of the Third Age of Middle-earth and the very beginning of the Fourth. It chronicles the final defeat of the Dark Lord Sauron — who had been around since the very First Age — and establishes a long-sought-after peace in the land. With the closing of the Dark Lord's throne and the rise of Aragorn, the descendant of Isildur, as the King of Gondor and Arnor, the story of Middle-earth effectively ends, with everything as it should be.
"The Lord of the Rings" itself is something of a sequel to "The Hobbit," but it never warranted a true sequel. Indeed, Tolkien's original elaborative masterpiece stands on its own, and even if works like "The Silmarillion" were never published, it would contain some of the best works of mythmaking known to our present age. In the Peter Jackson films, the story ends when Frodo (Elijah Wood) departs from Middle-earth alongside the remaining Elves and Gandalf (Ian McKellen). A perfect ending, "The Lord of the Rings" makes it clear that the story is finished, and while there are pages left for Sam (Sean Astin) to one day fill, there are no more perilous adventures in need of undertaking. So why ruin an ending that wraps things up so neatly?
The Hobbit trilogy already felt like a step-down
This brings us to the idea of a Middle-earth prequel. Of course, Warner Bros. already did this with "The Hobbit" trilogy, which generally failed to live up to fan expectations. "The Hobbit" films are a great example of what can happen when you overindulge to make a bigger profit rather than honoring the source material. While Peter Jackson's "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy isn't a perfect adaptation itself, it does its best to honor the spirit of the books. In contrast, "The Hobbit" opts to "go bigger," with poor special effects, a distracting frame rate, and newly invented characters who add little to the original tale.
No doubt, there are redeeming qualities about "The Hobbit" films. Benedict Cumberbatch's Smaug is electric, Martin Freeman's Bilbo is delightful, and it's always nice to see Ian McKellan back as Gandalf; but even some great performances didn't save these three films from feeling like disorganized cash grabs. No wonder Guillermo del Toro left the project and Peter Jackson felt he had to add so many inserts from J.R.R. Tolkien's greater mythology — Warner Bros. needed "The Hobbit" to feel as big as "The Lord of the Rings," despite the story being nothing of the sort. Many fans and critics were understandably let down by "The Hobbit," and the revelation that WBD is hoping to make more Middle-earth films can't help but feel like a repeat of the studio's past mistakes.
The Rings of Power is currently covering the Second Age
"The Hobbit" isn't the only Middle-earth prequel story that Warner Bros. Discovery could pull from. "The Silmarillion" is an even more expansive collection of Middle-earth mythology that J.R.R. Tolkien meant to be published as a separate volume alongside "The Lord of the Rings." However, the publishers weren't particularly interested. The collection was later published posthumously by his son, Christopher Tolkien, with the greater story behind Middle-earth — including the world's creation by Eru Ilúvatar, the awakening of the Elves, and the fall of Númenor — written in detail within this text. These stories are, of course, referenced in "The Lord of the Rings," both the books and films, and are of particular importance to the world of Middle-earth.
In 2022, Amazon Prime Video decided to adapt the Second Age of Middle-earth with their series "The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power." Unfortunately, those behind "Rings of Power" don't have the entire "Silmarillion" to work from (they can only use Tolkien's appendices as inspiration), and that's been to the show's detriment. The Amazon series, which relies more on style than substance, feels more disconnected from Tolkien's literary work than any other adaptation, and while there is some glint of decent material in there, it's a bit too generic to stand out. A poor proxy for Tolkien's legendarium, indeed. Hopefully, that will change in subsequent seasons, but thus far, "Rings of Power" doesn't give us much hope for Middle-earth's future, or its past.
Peter Jackson likely won't be as involved
It took five years to bring the world of Middle-earth to life for the live-action "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, which was a type of care and dedication that very few trilogies seem to get nowadays. "I had to create the most believable world I could," director Peter Jackson once said (via Variety). Unlike "The Hobbit" or "The Rings of Power" later on, every prop and set for "The Lord of the Rings" was constructed physically, from scratch, and used as the basis for what you would see on screen. It was this type of care that Jackson infused into his trilogy that helped make it so impressive, winning 17 out of the 30 Oscars it was nominated for. (Each of the original films was nominated for an Oscar for their art direction and production design.) It's hard to imagine anyone else bringing J.R.R. Tolkien's original material to life so successfully.
But after the disaster that was "The Hobbit," it's unlikely that Jackson will be involved much going forward. "[The studios] have kept us in the loop every step of the way," Jackson and co-writers Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens told Variety in a statement in 2023. "We look forward to speaking with them further to hear their vision for the franchise moving forward," they continued. Thus far, Jackson hasn't been involved in the upcoming animated feature "The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim," though actress Miranda Otto is set to return in a voice role as Éowyn. No doubt, Warner Bros. is hoping for a big-budget cinematic universe with these new films; it wouldn't be surprising then if Jackson has left Middle-earth behind for good.
We already have plenty of great Middle-earth video games
One medium that is often forgotten about when it comes to adaptations is video games. While Warner Bros. and Amazon continue to adapt J.R.R. Tolkien's books to the big and streaming screens, the Tolkien Estate has licensed the making of dozens of Middle-earth games over the years. Of course, there were video game adaptations of the Peter Jackson films by Electronic Arts, and many other strategy games have expanded on Tolkien's greater lore, but since 2010, Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment has taken a different approach. In the past decade, the developers have dived into Aragorn's story before the events of the films, the War in the North during Sauron's campaign, Gollum's adventures between "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings," and even Gimli's return to Moria following the events of the War of the Ring.
Warner Bros. has already expanded upon some of the most interesting untold tales of the Third Age, and many of these stories are told in ways that honor both the original books and the live-action films. Why do again on film what has already been done in a different medium? Though perhaps the most interesting of all the games is the "Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor" series, which follows a Gondorian Ranger bound to the spirit of the Elf smith Celebrimbor (yes, the guy who forged the titular Rings of Power). Admittedly, the games' changes to some of Tolkien's characters left a poor taste, though the narrative itself shows the potential for Middle-earth video games going forward.
Many of the original Fellowship have aged out
Bringing back Ian McKellen and some of the other cast members of the "Lord of the Rings" for "The Hobbit" trilogy made sense. After all, McKellen, Hugo Weaving, Christopher Lee, and Cate Blanchett didn't look too different since the last time we saw them on-screen, but that was also over a decade ago now. Twenty years following the release of "The Return of the King," Elijah Wood, Viggo Mortensen, Orlando Bloom, Sean Astin, and the other members of the Fellowship have arguably aged out of their respective characters — especially considering that some of them, such as Legolas, aren't supposed to age much at all (and his "Hobbit" appearance was already a stretch).
It's unlikely that Warner Bros. will make a direct sequel. Nevertheless, bringing these characters back too much after all this time might prove a bit unbelievable. Miranda Otto returning as Éowyn for "The War of the Rohirrim" makes sense since the film is animated, but live-action returns are out of the question for many of the original cast. Even with the de-aging technology we have now, doing that with major actors like Ian McKellan can run the risk of appearing too cartoonish. Of course, this may prove to be a non-issue if WBD decides to develop films based on other characters from the books who were cut out of Peter Jackson's film trilogy, such as Tom Bombadil or Glorfindel. "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil" doesn't include any of the Fellowship, after all, though Sam Gamgee is credited as its writer of much of it.
The original trilogy is great the way it is
It took J.R.R. Tolkien about 12 years to write "The Lord of the Rings" after "The Hobbit" was published in 1937, and another few years after that to get it published. Likewise, it took Peter Jackson nearly a decade between the initial development of his "Lord of the Rings" trilogy and the theatrical release of the third film to complete his Tolkien adaptation. "The Lord of the Rings" isn't an easy book to adapt. In fact, none of Tolkien's works are particularly marketable for the screen, especially as they're written. But somehow, Jackson managed to bring Middle-earth to life in a way that most consider to be one of the best trilogies ever put to film. It's certainly not hard to see why.
But just as countless "Star Wars" sequels and spin-offs have cheapened what we love about the classic George Lucas films, so too might too many Middle-earth productions run the risk of becoming bland or repetitive. "The Rings of Power" struggles with that already, and with how exceptional and beloved Jackson's "The Lord of the Rings" films are, why risk sullying their reputation? "The Hobbit" already showed us what poor Middle-earth movies can look like. If WBD were really serious about making more "Lord of the Rings," the studio would be better off considering rebooting it entirely as a multi-season television series (two seasons per book), one that would take its sweet time to adapt absolutely everything from Tolkien's original epic.
Some haven't been happy with the studio's work on Middle-earth so far
While most adore the "Lord of the Rings" movies, there are some fans who refuse to acknowledge them. A few glaring plot holes aside, Peter Jackson changed a lot of J.R.R. Tolkien's material to make the film work, removing important scenes and characters and inserting others into positions once claimed by another. The Elves, for example, do not appear to help Rohan during the invasion of Helm's Deep, and Jackson has never given a good enough reason for the change. Additionally, Sauron isn't a massive flaming eye in the novels but rather has a corporeal form of his own, complete with four fingers instead of five (as Gollum makes note). And let's not forget that "The Return of the King" is supposed to end with the four hobbits fighting for the Shire, which was taken over by Saruman, months after the One Ring is destroyed.
There are other changes too, like Aragorn's struggle with becoming king (a role he instead takes up heroically in the books), and such alterations didn't sit particularly well with some, most notably Tolkien's own son. "They gutted the book, making it an action film for 15-25-year-olds," Christopher Tolkien explained of the feature film adaptation of his father's work (via La Monde). He continued, "Tolkien became a monster, devoured by his popularity and absorbed by the absurdity of the times." After all this, some would rather Tolkien's work not be revisited on the screen at all.
Not even J.R.R. Tolkien could come up with a great sequel
Nowadays, a film trilogy as successful as "The Lord of the Rings" would often warrant a sequel (despite the books already being a sequel to "The Hobbit"), but since J.R.R. Tolkien never wrote a real sequel to his Middle-earth epic, there's not much in the Fourth Age for Warner Bros. Discovery to actually pull from. But many don't know that Tolkien once attempted to write a sequel to "The Lord of the Rings," a story he once titled "The New Shadow." This sequel didn't last long, though, as Tolkien himself became disinterested in the premise and was happy to leave our heroes in victory without the return of these dark forces to Middle-earth.
This sequel would have begun after the death of Aragorn and followed Borlas of Pen-arduin and a younger man named Saelon as they discussed an evil cult and the threat of the return of darkness to Middle-earth. But this story didn't last more than 13 pages, and the professor soon departed from it entirely. "I did begin a story placed about 100 years after the Downfall [of Mordor], but it proved both sinister and depressing," he wrote in 1964. "I could have written a 'thriller' about the plot and its discovery and overthrow — but it would be just that. Not worth doing." If Tolkien himself didn't believe it was worth revisiting "The Lord of the Rings" for continuing adventures, then maybe Warner Bros. Discovery should take the hint.
Other WB properties haven't turned out so well
Possibly the most notable reason we're nervous about Warner Bros. Discovery's announcement of new "Lord of the Rings" content is due to how the company has treated its previous franchises. Despite the brand associations concerning "Harry Potter," "Batman," "Superman," "Scooby-Doo," and other notable properties, WBD doesn't have the greatest track record concerning its handling of these characters. The "Fantastic Beasts" series, which was meant to continue the Wizarding World franchise, has decreased in quality with every installment until finally being shelved completely rather than adequately finished. The DCEU was axed by the studio in an effort to re-brand as the new DC Universe with successful Marvel Studios director James Gunn at the helm, clearly ignoring anything the studio may have learned from "Justice League" or "Green Lantern" about copying the Marvel tone with DC characters.
Other trainwrecks like "Velma," "The Flash," and that horrid ending to "Game of Thrones" didn't help either, but it was Warner Bros. Discovery's treatment of films like "Batgirl," "Coyote Vs. Acme," and multiple "Scooby-Doo" productions that really sparked a distrust with both fans and filmmakers who wish to see these projects released. Even Christopher Nolan, who had made movies with Warner Bros. for two decades, left his "home" studio to make "Oppenheimer" at Universal. If this shows anything, it's that WBD executives have a brazen lack of genuine care for the stories being told, and if that's how Warner Bros. Discovery treats its own properties, it's no wonder that so many are concerned for the on-screen future of J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle-earth.