By now, Stephen Colbert is off The Late Show and likely living large. I like to picture him sitting in plaid pajamas with a tea (yeah, he’s a tea guy) and maybe a real-life throwback newspaper, but I honestly have no idea if he’s even really been home yet given he was going straight to his brother’s wedding after the show wrapped on the 2026 TV schedule. One thing we did learn recently? Contrary to popular belief, The Lord of the Rings project actually came about before CBS decided to axe its late night series.

Yes, really. Colbert set the record straight in an interview as he was exiting the Eye Network. He told People a tidbit we did know about the project, which is that he’s writing it with his kid. However, he also mentioned this is something he’s actually been working on since Covid days.

That’s kind of good news, I think? If he and his kid have been tinkering with a script for something like five or six years, I’d hope it’s much further along than I would have guessed based on Peter Jackson’s March announcement. The only thing that is giving me a small amount of pause is that it’s a lot of years to be working on one script.

Of course, the man was doing this while working a full time, and very demanding job on network television. If you needed further evidence of how demanding said job is, he was taking a break with a literal “sock over” his eyes before the night in question's show when his agent broke the cancellation news. He’s so tired in the office he had to nap before filming? Maybe things worked out for the best.

Those who have watched Stephen Colbert in any capacity have known he’s a giant Lord of the Rings fan for years. I think he was super curious to talk to Ian McKellen about not having read the LOTR books when he appeared on his show back in February. (McKellen has told several very funny stories previously on this topic.) The two were able to have a spirited chat about him landing the role and his elvish tattoo and more.

It’s felt like a nice way to close one chapter and open another, and it’s still super cool that Colbert got the idea in the first place from SNL alum Bill Hader. Hader went to write for South Park after wrapping on SNL and spent a year honing his writing skills there. LOTR is already near and dear to Colbert’s heart, and I think it’s a great fit, but I’m even more pleased this is something that’s been in the works for a while.

Hopefully that means it’s closer to fruition than we think. Hopefully.

Admittedly, Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker was not the first movie I expected to hear mentioned in the same breath as the upcoming The Lord of the Rings: The Hunt for Gollum. The Middle-earth-based creature and Gotham’s clown prince do not exactly feel like natural traveling companions. Yet, as it turns out, according to Peter Jackson, Phoenix’s take on the Joker influenced the standalone LOTR story for a very understandable reason.

Peter Jackson was at the Cannes Film Festival when he explained why Todd Phillips’ 2019 book-to-screen adaptation of the comic-book character has been part of the thinking behind the new Gollum movie. Speaking with IndieWire during the festival, the New Zealand filmmaker said the upcoming movie release will use material from J.R.R. Tolkien’s appendices, but tell it from Gollum’s internal perspective. According to him:

That last line is very funny, but it also gets to the real reason this comparison works better than it sounds at first. Jackson is not saying The Hunt for Gollum is about to turn Middle-earth into a grimy, R-rated descent through urban misery. At least, I certainly hope not. The point of the flick seems to be all about perspective.

Phillips' original Joker takes one of pop culture’s most familiar villains and builds a story around his mental state. Whether or not the movie works for every viewer, its whole engine was psychological intimacy. It's a film less interested in the broad new superhero movie and comic-book machinery around the Joker than in the broken human being beneath the makeup.

Gollum is a different creature entirely, but he has always carried that same uneasy pull. He's pitiful, frightening, funny, dangerous and tragic, sometimes in the span of one scene. In Jackson’s original Lord of the Rings films, Andy Serkis made him more than a visual effect or a riddle-loving cave monster. He became a person whose soul had been worn thin by the Ring until only hunger, memory and old pain remained.

That makes him a much more interesting subject than a simple prequel checklist would suggest. Jackson is producing The Hunt for Gollum, while Serkis is directing and reprising the titular role. The film is currently set to hit theaters Dec. 17, 2027.

The more Jackson talks about the movie as an internal story, the easier it is to understand why he did not simply direct it himself. Serkis has lived inside Gollum in a way no other filmmaker has. He created the voice, the body language, the twisted vulnerability and the divided personality that made the character unforgettable on screen.

If the movie really is going to follow Tolkien’s existing material through Gollum’s damaged point of view, Serkis may be the safest risky choice. That sounds contradictory, but it is not. He knows the character well enough to push the film into stranger emotional territory without making it feel like fan fiction wearing the One Ring on a chain.

The idea of using Tolkien’s appendices as the bones and Gollum’s mind as the meat is much more compelling than I expected. Phoenix’s Joker may be a strange compass for Middle-earth, but for this particular character, it points in a direction worth following.

While fans wait for The Hunt for Gollum, they can stream the original Lord of the Rings trilogy using an HBO Max subscription. That same membership also gives access to Joker and its 2024 sequel, Folie à Deux.

Can you believe it’s been over a decade since a live-action Lord of the Rings movie came out? Next year, Andy Serkis will end the long hiatus with his spinoff film, The Hunt For Gollum. So far, I’ve had a “wait and see” mentality about the movie, but after Elijah Wood’s recent comments, I feel like I’m ready to get the fireworks going for a celebration in The Shire.

What Elijah Wood Said About The Hunt For Gollum

Rumor has it that Elijah Wood is reprising his role as Frodo in The Hunt For Gollum, which he has said he can “neither confirm nor deny.” After the actor was honest before about having read the script for it, he was asked how it can possibly live up to the original trilogy on the Happy Sad Confused podcast. Here’s how he responded:

From what we know about The Hunt For Gollum, it will be another live-action Lord of the Rings movie, this time helmed by Andy Serkis, who is also reprising his role as Gollum in motion capture. It will be set before the events of Fellowship of the Ring and follow Aragorn and Gandalf on a quest to find Gollum to acquire more information about Bilbo’s ring.

Ian McKellan has confirmed his return as Gandalf, and Andy Serkis confirmed to ScreenRant that the role of Aragorn is being recast. Here’s what else Wood said:

He also noted that a lot of the creatives and crew from the original trilogy are part of the new film, including Peter Jackson being on board as a producer. Wood sounds pretty excited about the whole thing!

How His Comments Are Getting Me More Excited For The Upcoming Movie

I think after The Hobbit movies, there’s definitely some negative thoughts out there about more live-action Lord of the Rings. When I first heard the news about The Hunt For Gollum, I wasn’t exactly jumping for joy either. However, I think Elijah Wood makes some really solid points here about this film.

For one, he’s right, the Peter Jackson movies already exist and are greatly admired and stunning achievements. Based on his comments, The Hunt For Gollum sounds like Serkis and the other filmmakers are aiming to give fans more of what they love about the originals and enrich the lore of the movie universe after Fellowship of the Ring could only cover so much of Tolkien’s work.

Sure, I’m still a bit worried about how much The Hunt For Gollum will be in the shadows of the trilogy, but I do deeply miss being in Middle Earth. And as someone who grew up with the Lord of the Rings movies, I’m really excited about getting to see them in theaters and see some of my favorite fantasy characters back on the big screen.

Elijah Wood expressing the filmmakers’ good intentions is also a good sign, too. I think it’d be much more difficult to be on board if the original creatives weren’t in the mix, but Gollum himself is directing and starring. The hype is starting to rise for me! The Hunt For Gollum is slated for December 17, 2027.

At the moment, in the world of The Lord of the Rings, there’s a lot of focus on Andy Serkis’ movie, The Hunt for Gollum. Meanwhile, in the land of late-night, the fact that Stephen Colbert’s show is ending on the 2026 TV schedule has been a primary point of discussion for months. However, as his show ends and LOTR continues to expand its universe, the worlds are colliding in what might seem to be a surprising way. However, upon reflection, it’s actually not shocking to me at all that Colbert’s next project will be writing a Lord of the Rings movie.

Stephen Colbert Is Writing A Lord Of The Rings Movie

In honor of Tolkien Reading Day, Peter Jackson appeared in a video where he provided updates on The Hunt for Gollum and announced a new project that’s in development. He also revealed that said project is being co-written by Stephen Colbert. And yes, I do mean the host of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. Explaining what exactly this movie is, the late-night host said:

Colbert went on to explain that he spoke about this idea with his son, Peter, who is a screenwriter, and they worked out a “framing device” for this tale. I’ll let The Late Show host take the story from here, as he said:

Then, they took the story to New Line Cinema and Warner Bros, and they “loved it.” That led to a lighthearted quip about Colbert being “free this summer” to take on this big undertaking, seeing as The Late Show was canceled. Well, I guess even the saddest of life changes come with silver linings, as the comedian cheerfully said:

Now, speaking of that show that’s ending, it’s through years of Colbert’s work on it that I realized he’s actually the perfect person to take on a LOTR movie.

Why This News Actually Isn’t Surprising, And Is Very Exciting

So, in this announcement video, Colbert’s love and knowledge of Lord of the Rings is on display between his decorations in the background and the way in which he speaks about what he’s adapting. However, over the years he has hosted The Late Show, he’s shown off his LOTR knowledge and love on multiple occasions.

For example, four years ago, Dominic Monaghan and Billy Boyd, who played Merry and Pippin, tried to stump Colbert by giving him LOTR trivia:

Those weren’t easy questions – I mean, they asked him about forest geography and deep lore. And while Colbert didn’t get one of them, he did get the other two with ease. Then, as a prize, they gave him ears from the movie, and he was so overjoyed.

On top of that, nine years ago, Colbert answered crowd questions about LOTR on his show. This included him going on a tangent about Frodo being able to throw the ring in the fire that ended with him saying, “Gandalf did not put as much thought into this as I have." He also dove into some deep Gandalf lore:

The examples don’t end there either. He has had many LOTR cast members on the show, and a lot of the time, the movies come up, and he joyfully speaks about the franchise with them. He’s also talked about Lord of the Rings with guests like Florence Pugh and Ryan Gosling.

All this is to say, Stephen Colbert cares deeply about this franchise, and he really knows his stuff. So, no, it’s not surprising that he’s writing a movie. In fact, it actually makes so much sense, and I think he’ll do a great job with it.

Director Peter Jackson has plenty of movies, but few are quite as iconic as the book to screen adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. That trilogy, which is streaming with a HBO Max subscription, is still a beloved piece of film history that's regularly re-watched to this day. But new information about them keeps trickling out. Case in point: Gandalf actor Ian McKellen revealed a funny question he had to ask early onto filming as the beloved Wizard.

The Lord of the Rings movies are a visual treat, and McKellen expertly brought Gandalf to life throughout them. But it turns out that the character's final goodbye to the Hobbit from Return of the King was actually one of his first scenes to work on. In a conversation with journalist Jake Hamilton, the legendary actor offered some context, saying:

Movies are typically not shot in order, but the fact that McKellen started his LOTR journey by working on the last scene of Return of the King is especially wild. He was just starting to bring Gandalf to life, and had to get in the mind set of the character after the twists and turns of all three movies.

Later in the same interview, McKellen went on to share the funny question he asked Peter Jackson while bringing that early scene to life. In his words:

Given how much the Lord of the Rings movies and books mean to people, this story might have folks spitting out their coffee. But since Ian McKellen had only just begun shooting as Gandalf, he didn't necessarily understand the context of his final scene with the Hobbits of The Shire. Luckily he got the information he needed to give a convincing performance.

McKellen has spoken about the challenges that came with the Lord of the Rings movies, which ended up being wildly successful. This amusing story is just the latest. While speaking about his second day of shooting, the 86 year-old actor poked fun at his performance in the sequence in question, saying:

Talk about self-deprecating humor. There are plenty of LOTR fans who might argue about how effective his work was in this scene, but McKellen was the one physically on set. And he seems to be have clocked his own confusion when watching the theatrical cut.

The Lord of The Rings movies are streaming now on HBO Max, and a new title The Hunt for Gollum is on its way. As for McKellen, he's set to appear in the upcoming Marvel movie Avengers: Doomsday, which hits theaters on December 20th as part of the 2026 movie release list.

The Lord of the Rings has been a part of Peter Jackson’s life for decades. While he’s spent much of the last few years focused on making and remastering Beatles documentaries, he’s never been too far from Middle-earth, and the director of all the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit movies says he wants to go back at least one more time.

All three Lord of the Rings films are being re-released in theaters this weekend to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the launch of the franchise. Speaking with Empire on the occasion, Jackson says there is one more LOTR project he’d like to do, a full behind-the-scenes documentary on the production of the trilogy. He said:

The production of The Lord of the Rings was unlike anything the movie industry has seen before or since. It was massive, with pre-production for all three films being handled at once, and filming for all three movies being handled simultaneously. Considering how unique a production it was, a film that shows that would almost certainly be incredible, and something fans would love to see.

However, as Jackson points out, the undertaking of a documentary would likely be almost as herculean a task as the movies themselves. Sifting through literally years of footage to put something together would be a lot of work. And a documentary to give that production justice would probably be at least as long as all three Lord of the Rings movies themselves.

Speaking of, check out the trailer below for the theatrical re-releases.

It’s maybe not a shock that the studio is a little gunshy at the idea. A production like that would be expensive, and while a lot of people would love to see it, it probably wouldn’t make a great deal of money. If such a film, or more likely films, were released in theaters, only the true diehards would buy tickets. It would almost certainly blow up on streaming, but would people buy an HBO Max subscription just to watch it?

We are getting more Lord of the Rings movies, of course. Jackson is producing The Hunt for Gollum, starring and being directed by Andy Serkis, which will likely have other Lord of the Rings stars as well. More movies are planned after that. While none of them is a massive documentary, perhaps, if these new films are successful, Jackson can talk the studio into that movie after all.

This year marks the 25th anniversary of the release of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, the first entry in one of the most ambitious film undertakings ever attempted. To celebrate the anniversary, all three of the iconic films are being re-released in theaters this month, and Peter Jackson is coming along for the ride. He's also sharing behind-the-scenes stories, including one about how Viggo Mortensen getting into a surfboard accident impacted his movies.

When The Lord of the Rings movies hit screens again this weekend, they’ll be accompanied by new introductions by director Peter Jackson. EW has a look at one of them, which includes the director talking about the production, which was more like one massive film than it was three separate projects. He said…

Needless to say, a project that extensive was bound to have some problems, and one of them was a surfboard that injured Viggo Mortensen, and required some quick thinking on the director’s part to work around it. Jackson says the team was working on a key Fellowship scene. Unfortunately, one of the principal players in the scene had sustained an injury during a break in filming. Jackson explained…

The Lord of the Rings saw its share of injuries. This isn't even the only significant injury to Viggo Mortensen. It's frequently reported that the actor broke two toes kicking a helmet in one scene as well. However, getting whacked in the face by a surfboard is a bit harder to cover up.

If it were a minor thing, it likely could have been covered by makeup. Unfortunately, as Jackson tells it, the injury was quite severe. If it had been a smaller production, rescheduling the scene might have been possible, but on something like The Lord of the Rings, that simply wasn’t an option, leading Jackson to only have one choice. He said…

Peter Jackson says the shots in question came during the Mines of Moria sequence, when the Cave Troll joins the fight. Give the scene a look below and see if you can spot an injured Viggo Mortensen.

With two new Lord of the Rings movies on the way, hopefully, all involved will stay injury-free. Although whether or not Viggo Mortensen will be in them remains to be seen.

Now, to go back and see the original trilogy, you can catch it in theaters this weekend, or you can stream it with an HBO Max subscription.

It’s far from uncommon these days for a Hollywood studio to announce the return of a beloved franchise to the big screen with new installments, but it was still a shock when it was announced that we would be getting not one, but two new Lord of the Rings movies from producer Peter Jackson. The first planned film, The Hunt for Gollum, will star and be directed by Andy Serkis, but he’s not the only member of the original cast who will be returning.

Last year, during a public appearance, Sir Ian McKellen seemingly spilled the beans by stating that both Gandalf and Frodo would appear in the new movie. Elijah Wood was there at the time and had a smile on his face, though he said nothing. When asked at Fan Expo New Orleans about his “theoretical” return, the actor (via ScreenRant) said…

While Elijah Wood is clearly having some fun with the whole thing, he seems to clearly confirm his return, if a “wizard is to be trusted” without actually saying he’ll be back, likely because if he’s under contract, he’s not allowed to say he’s in it, at least not yet.

One thing Wood can discuss is how excited he is that Andy Serkis will direct The Hunt for Gollum. He thinks it's perfect that Serkis will direct a film focused on the character that he helped create in live-action, and he’s looking forward to the continued expansion of The Lord of the Rings in whatever form that takes. Wood said…

When The Hunt for Gollum was first announced, we were told two Lord of the Rings films were on the way. It’s unclear if they’ll be connected or separate standalone features, but either way, it seems clear that Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings will live on, and while we may not know officially who will be back in the new movies, there will likely be plenty of work for the original cast for any who want to go back to Middle earth.

The Lord of the Rings changed Hollywood’s landscape in many ways, including its use of motion capture for Gollum/Smeagol. While the film technique is far more common than we realize now (for example, Cocaine Bear’s bear was played by an actor), it wasn’t always so. Andy Serkis, who played the little, obsessive monster in the LOTR movies, went through extensive prep and training for the series, only to be laughed at by director Peter Jackson.

Before Serkis officially gears up for his contribution to the 2025 movie schedule, an animated adaptation of George Orwell’s Animal Farm, he reunited with some fellow LOTR alum. During the Chicago Comic & Entertainment Expo’s Lord of the Rings reunion panel (via Collider), Serkis recalled his first day on set as Gollum. Though it isn’t the first time he’s recounted being mocked for motion capture acting, his delayed start date behind the rest of the production could’ve affected people’s reactions. As he prepared for his first on-set shot from Return of the King, people started eyeing him, and eventually, he even elicited a laugh from Jackson:

There are a few things to recap, but first and foremost, it’s a bummer that other performers didn’t (and still maybe don’t) recognize how much commitment it takes. Albeit, this was in the late ‘90s and early ‘00s, and this Hollywood technology was not a common sight, and Serkis arrived later than everyone.

On the other hand, if the cast and crew were familiar with author J.R.R. Tolkien, they’d know this little gremlin would bound to show himself on set one way or another (thank goodness Gollum wasn’t a completely animated overlay). What I’m most surprised at, though, is that Jackson chuckled at Andy Serkis. Was he that good or was it that jarring to see someone acting like that for the first time?

Regardless, the once Hobbit’s legacy has been cemented in Hollywood history and paved the way for the type of films and the character itself. Who knows if projects like James Cameron's Avatar franchise would’ve exploded like they did or have Zoe Saldana be one of mocap movies' biggest advocates, even if it does look off-kilter on set, if it weren’t for Serkis’ work on LOTR? All of that said, the recent announcement of The Lord of the Rings: The Hunt for Gollum getting greenlit speaks to all of this, including Serkis’ talent.

Jackson is pairing up with the Smeagol/Gollum actor for the new LOTR prequel, which is slated for 2027. After getting delayed in production, it remains to be seen if other former LOTR actors will reprise their roles just yet. The reason for the Gollum spinoff movie, according to the pair, is that the duality of the monster has a lot left unexplored, per Tolkien’s appendices from The Fellowship of the Ring. While who will be returning with Serkis for the LOTR prequel surrounding Gollum is up in the air, many alumni have weighed in (Mortensen was unclear, Bloom seems open to join, and McKellen has doubts about being cast due to age).

One thing is clear: Serkis and Gollum’s motion capture legacy is no longer a laughing matter to anyone, including Peter Jackson. Watch the Lord of the Rings trilogy with a Max subscription.

Some might think that picking your favorite Lord of the Rings movie is a pretty epic feat in itself. But like any heroic quest, such as setting your 2025 movie schedule, there are those who dare to take on the impossible. Middle-earth Saga director/producer Peter Jackson has done just that, as he's basically chosen his favorite child in the trilogy, and I must respectfully disagree.

Peter Jackson’s Pick For His Favorite Lord Of The Rings Film

In an interview with Letterboxd, Jackson promoted the recent release of The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim by chatting about his history with the franchise. Diving into his fandom convincing him to adapt a seemingly unadaptable story, the King Kong helmer admitted that he’s not a huge fan of rewatching his own work. However, he did share which installment of his first trilogy was his favorite, along with this important caveat:

What makes this subject even more appropriate is that the outlet shared the Lord of the Rings movies ranked pretty high on their poll of movies people love to re-watch at Christmas. That coincidence hits a bit harder, as it contrasts Peter Jackson's reticence to the fact that fans can’t get enough of returning to J.R.R. Tolkien’s fantasy world of bravery.

At the same time, that insistence that the fans keep enjoying the films is another sweet sign of The Frighteners mastermind's dedication. Even in the face of such sweetness, I must politely decline The Two Towers as his pick for the best installment. Which, in a sense, sounds like something Mr. Jackson would approve of, so long as it’s done in the spirit of enjoyment.

Why The Return Of The King Is The One True Best Middle-Earth Saga Movie

Now I’m not saying that either The Fellowship of the Ring or The Two Towers are bad movies. From day one I was invested in Peter Jackson’s Middle-earth Saga, and I’m even a fan of The Hobbit trilogy, even in light of the fact that it really should have stuck to two films. That being said, it’s The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King that truly reigns supreme in my eyes - with a big reason being it ties up all of those themes so brilliantly.

My memories of this grand finale still sparkle after over 20 years of history, as it’s one of the best landings a trilogy ever stuck. And yes, that’s including the fact that people frequently debate the “five endings” Return of the King seems to have. All the profound speeches, a killer Howard Shore musical score, and lush visuals left everything on the field, and that’s saying something for a third entry of any franchise - especially one that set a Fathom Events box office record 20 years later.

Overall, it kind of doesn’t matter which Lord of the Rings chapter you love the most. With a tale so tightly woven it all forms a gorgeously cohesive whole, it does feel a bit wrong to single out one piece of the puzzle. As that debate will undoubtedly rage on, all we can do is hope that people will continue to revisit the majesty that Peter Jackson and his crew left the world when they decided to conquer this seemingly impossible feat.

With that in mind, the entire six film Middle-earth Saga is available for streaming, provided you have an active Max subscription. And if you feel like having a little more of a debate in preference, check out our Lord of the Rings movie rankings. I'll be curious to see how people's tunes change once they catch The War of the Rohirrim, which will eventually hit that same platform, albeit at an undetermined date.

Lord of the Rings fans are spoiled for choice these days. Season 2 of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power is here, and a new animated, The Lord of the Rings: The War of Rohirrim movie is on the way later this year. On top of that, two new live-action films from Peter Jackson are on the way. The only thing we know for certain is that Andy Serkis will direct the first, and return to play Gollum, but we expect others from the original series may also appear, and Sir Ian McKellen has confirmed that he has been asked.

Speaking with Big Issue while recovering from a recent fall while performing Shakespeare, the Gandalf actor revealed that he has been approached about reprising his role as Gandalf in the tentatively titled, The Lord of the Rings: The Hunt For Gollum. It doesn't sound like there's any guarantee that McKellen will appear quite yet, but if Gandalf is in the movie (which seems likely), Peter Jackson and company hope the actor will return. McKellen said…

“Hope” is certainly doing a lot of work here. The actor is clearly referring to his own mortality, as the most likely reason the actor might not return would be if he were no longer with us. McKellen has previously said that he’s interested in returning as Gandalf, assuming that he’s still alive when the time comes to do so.

He reiterated that idea, saying that the writers better be quick and get the script written because time is of the essence given he's 85 at this point. He continued, morbid-but-hopeful:

Ian McKellen isn’t the only one who has had a memorable response to the idea of returning for more Lord of the Rings movies. When Viggo Mortensen was asked about the idea of returning to play Aragorn again, he said it would depend on the script's quality --unless he really needed money.

Director Andy Serkis has so far avoided talking about characters or actors returning to the franchise. Since the movie hasn’t been written yet, it seems unlikely even the filmmakers knows all the characters that may appear in the film. Still, I personally think it's all but certain that if any characters from the previous Lord of the Rings or Hobbit trilogies will appear, they’ll want the original actors back as well.

On the one hand, getting that script done quickly may help land actors like Ian McKellen, but on the other, fans certainly won’t want to see the new movies rushed the way the Hobbit movies were.

When I watched the OG Lord of the Rings movies for the first time, I didn’t fall in love with them. It wasn’t until I watched its prequel series, Rings of Power, with an Amazon Prime subscription that I started to get what all the hype was about. Now, with Rings of Power Season 2 airing on the 2024 TV schedule, I decided to give Peter Jackson’s movies another shot, because I figured I’d enjoy them more this time around. Turns out, I was right!

As I mentioned, I was pretty indifferent about The Lord of the Rings movies after I saw them for the first time a few years ago. I didn’t grow up with them, I haven’t read the books, and to be blunt about it, I was overwhelmed by the universe. However, thankfully, Rings of Power is helping me understand Middle-earth’s history. So, when I gave Fellowship another chance with that background knowledge, my thoughts about the film changed completely, and this is why:

Before Watching Rings Of Power, I Wasn’t Invested In The Elves. Now, I Care So Much About Them

I’m about to be so real right now, the last being I cared about when I watched Fellowship for the first time was Elrond, Galadriel and all the other elves.

With Elrond, I just thought he was some guy giving Frodo and co. directions, and I was ready for them to just get on the road. A common theme in this story, as I’ve mentioned, will be me admitting how careless I was about the lore the first time around. And I think I was the worst offender when it came to Elrond, his backstory and the role he plays in Frodo’s journey.

Now, because of Rings of Power, I understand how apprehensive he’s always been about the evil power of this jewelry. Watching him literally jump off a waterfall with the rings in Episode 1 of Season 2 and witnessing how it fractured his relationships with Galadriel and High King Gil-galad hammered that point home. So, when I watched Fellowship this time around, I could feel the weight of Elrond’s past weighing on him as he spoke about how important it was to get rid of the ring.

The same can be said about Galadriel. The first time through with LOTR, I didn’t fully comprehend why she was important, and it felt like she was always speaking in riddles. However, with the context of Rings of Power on my side, her haunted moment when she sees the One Ring packs a sucker punch, because I know she was deeply deceived and hurt by Sauron all those years ago when he was disguised as Halbrand.

All together, my appreciation for the elves' impact on Middle-earth and their connection to the battle against Sauron has increased tenfold, because I get the lore now!

Aragorn’s Lineage And Why It’s Important Is Something I Actually Appreciate 

Let the record show, the first time I watched Fellowship, out of the LOTR cast Aragorn was one of my favorite characters (Gandalf is the other). I was in love with Viggo Mortensen’s performance, and I adored the hero’s journey he went on across the three films. However, when it came to why he had a claim to the throne… before Rings of Power, I couldn’t have explained it to you.

Now, and I say this with my full chest: boy do I know who Isildur is! In fact, while watching this film I screamed when the statues of Isildur and his brother Anárion appeared.

In Rings of Power, I adore Isildur, and I’m very fascinated by the journey he’s going on, especially now that he’s not in Númenor and I know he’s eventually going to become a king. I’m invested in his journey, because he’s pure and good, and I’m fascinated by the fact that when he obtains the One Ring, he can’t throw it into Mount Doom.

Between the downfall of Isildur – that now also has the context of his origins from the prequel series added to it – as well as the rise of Aragorn, when I watched Fellowship I absolutely got the importance of Mortensen’s character on a much grander scale that goes far beyond he’s good with a sword, nice and royal.

I Fully Get The Power Of The Rings And Just How Terrifying They Are

I’ll admit it, I was judgy at first. I thought it was easy to throw the ring in Mount Doom, and I didn’t get what the big deal was. I knew it was impossible to not be impacted by it, but I didn’t fully understand just how terrible it was.

Now, I get it. Seeing Sauron manipulate Celebrimbor into creating the rings in Rings of Power has added a whole new level of terror and meaning to Frodo’s journey with the ring. In the prequel series, the One Ring hasn’t even been created yet. However, we witness Sauron putting his dark plan into action as he takes advantage of this brilliant artist. Plus, across Season 1, as Galadriel became allies with Sauron (who was Halbrand), before realizing she was being coerced into helping him, I trusted him too. Then, when his true identity was revealed I was scared.

All this is to say, Sauron isn’t some god-like faceless creature in the show. He presents as a man people believe in. Seeing that added to my understanding of the rings and the downfall of Middle-earth.

Also, witnessing these strong characters be negatively influenced by him, when they seem like the kind of beings who never could be, emphasized the evil power of the ring as well as its ability to corrupt. So, obviously, Frodo can’t easily complete his quest, and that makes sense now.

Looking back on my first viewing of Fellowship of the Ring I was plagued by the overwhelming feeling of learning the lore, and that caused me to only watch the movie from a surface-level perspective. Now, being a big fan of Rings of Power, I have a new and deeper understanding of the characters, politics and lore that has made me do a total 180 on my feelings toward the OG Lord of the Rings movies.

If you are looking to go on a quest like this one and reassess your thoughts on this iconic fantasy franchise, you can stream Rings of Power on Amazon Prime and The Lord of the Rings movies with a Max subscription.

Ok, friends, it’s time to ruffle some feathers once again, particularly those belonging to the Lord of the Rings fandom. Now I have to preface what I’m about to say with the knowledge that I am indeed a fan of Peter Jackson’s landmark trilogy adapting J.R.R. Tolkien’s masterwork. The 2024 movie The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim is definitely on my watchlist for films due out this year, and it looks stunning.

However, someone has mentioned that he’s “still working” on a long-awaited sequel I need to see happen. And no, I don’t care that it’s taken over a decade for this news to make it to the fans.

The Adventures Of Tintin 2 Is Apparently Still In Play

Apparently thanks to a random fan encounter between Andy Serkis and an attendee at the Annecy Film Festival, Jackson’s long-awaited follow-up to Steven Spielberg’s The Adventures of Tintin isn’t as dead as we thought. In fact, thanks to this intrepid fan, we have this update to report from social media:

“So how overdue is this particular sequel,” you might be asking. “Are we talking a Tron: Legacy situation here, or something much shorter?” Well, as you can see by this CinemaBlend write-up about Tintin’s international box office clout, that first movie was released in 2011. So we’re 13 years out from the first installment’s release, and all we’ve got to show for it is…The Hobbit trilogy, the upcoming War of the Rohirrim and, of course, that fan film spoiler The Hunt for Gollum.

I’m sorry to say it, but the path between The Adventures of Tintin and its continuation is only made more painful by the fact that the adaptation of Hergé’s iconic boy detective was always meant to be the start of something greater.

Peter Jackson’s Sequel Has Always Been Part Of The Tintin Game Plan

Much like Alita: Battle Angel, another would-be franchise starter I hold near and dear to my heart, The Adventures of Tintin was meant to kick off a trilogy. As recently as 2018, Steven Spielberg’s Tintin 2 remarks reinforced the fact that the next entry was earmarked for Peter Jackson to tackle. The mastermind behind The Lord of the Rings knew full well that this was in his court as well, with plenty of announcements from himself, Mr. Spielberg and Tintin star Jamie Bell dropping all sorts of fun tidbits that kicked the can down the road.

Look, I get that there’s been some awesome passion projects Jackson has grabbed a hold of in this time span. We did get the amazing documentary They Shall Not Grow Old, as well as a Beatles documentary that ballooned from a single film into an entire Disney+ miniseries. At the same time, considering how thrilled fans were about The Hobbit trilogy, the fact that Peter Jackson is still forging entries in the Lord of the Rings series looks comparatively annoying.

That being said, if Andy Serkis is holding out hope to return as comedic drunk Captain Haddock, and if Jamie Bell is still up for a sequel to The Adventures of Tintin, I will certainly show up to see it on opening day. Which is apparently set, at this current moment, for the fifth of Never, especially with Serkis contributing to the hypothetical problem as the director for The Hunt for Gollum.

Oh well, at least a Paramount+ subscription will remind you of how awesome Steven Spielberg’s first installment was. In fact, I’d even say it’s the true fourth Indiana Jones movie, so use this opportunity to see the movie, and either debate me or join my quest to make sure Tintin 2 takes off!

Last month, Lord of the Rings fans lost our collective minds when it was announced that Peter Jackson and Andy Serkis were returning to Middle-earth for a new movie. But what about other original cast members like Ian McKellen? Will the legendary performer return as Gandalf this time around? The actor has weighed in. 

A movie called Lord of the Rings: The Hunt For Gollum is currently in development with Jackson producing and Andy Serkis set to star as Gollum and direct it. When McKellen was asked about the chance of him passing through Middle-earth again, here’s what he said: 

Even though the new Lord of the Rings movie is said to be released sometime in 2026, Andy Serkis said just last week that it is currently in “very early state script discussions,” and thus, perhaps the filmmakers don’t even know if Gandalf is going to be in it. So, as the actor shared, he has not been looped in about the project enough to know whether he’ll go back to play the iconic wizard, but there have been whispers. 

When The Times asked him if he’d be interested if he was asked to join in, here’s how he responded: 

Ian McKellen just turned 85 years old on May 25, but he remains a booked and busy actor who has been starring in Player Kings, a condensation of Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part I and Part II on the West End since April. The actor is set to tour the play with his cast this summer through July. While speaking about his current role, he candidly shared that every time he looks at scripts these days, he feels like it might be his “last job.” 

McKellen said he hopes to continue working, but he is aware these days that “life doesn’t go on forever.” So as the filmmakers behind the new Lord of the Rings movie perhaps decide whether or not they want to pitch the project to him, it sounds like the actor will be particularly selective. 

The Lord of the Rings spinoff will explore the backstory of Gollum/Sméagol and dig into elements of it that Peter Jackson “didn’t have time to cover in the earlier films.” As fans know, Gollum started as a Hobbit who came across the One Ring and allowed its power to consume him and become his “precious” to guard. 

Viggo Mortensen, who of course played Aragorn in the original trilogy, was also recently asked if he'd come back as his LOTR character. Not unlike McKellen, he shared he doesn’t know much about the project for the time being and would do it if he was “right for it” in terms of the age he is now, the story and to do right by the character. 

As we learn more about this exciting movie and the cast that may or may not be returning, we'll keep you posted. As for what you can do right now, you can watch Ian McKellen in the Lord of the Rings movies now with a Max subscription. Ahead of The Hunt For Gollum, you can also stream Season 2 of Lord of the Rings: The Rings Of Power with an Amazon Prime subscription when it returns with more episodes on the 2024 TV schedule on August 29. 

It’s an exciting time to be a Lord of the Rings fan! Between The Rings Of Power Season 2 taking us back to Middle-earth this summer and Peter Jackson and Andy Serkis making a LOTR movie from the fantasy world, there’s a lot to look forward to. Considering how classic the original trilogy has become, you can’t blame fans for wanting to see actors like Viggo Mortensen back in their beloved roles.

While we don’t know if Mortensen will return as Aragorn in future movies, he did recently wield the power of his character’s sword, Andúril, for his new movie, The Dead Don’t Hurt. It’s a sweet Lord of the Rings connection as fans hope for more of the great warrior.

The Story Behind Viggo Mortensen Bringing Andúril Back In Latest Movie 

After production wrapped on his final Lord of the Rings movie, Return of the King, Viggo Mortensen kept Andúril for safekeeping. When he starred and directed his latest movie, a Western called The Dead Don’t Hurt, he ended up reaching for the sword to complete a fantasy sequence within it. As he said:

While speaking to GQ, Mortensen also spoke to the process behind him being allowed to bring Andúril in front of the camera for the first time in over 20 years. As the actor continued:

Hey, when one already has the Flame of the West in one’s possession, how can you not use it? The Dead Don’t Hurt, which is now playing in theaters, was also written and produced by Mortensen. Oh, and he composed the score! It was made independently, premiered at the 2023 Toronto International Film Festival, and acquired by Shout! Studios earlier this year.

Mortensen's Latest Thoughts On Playing Aragorn Again

Over the years, Viggo Mortensen has certainly made a ton of movies that have proven he’s more than Aragorn, but that hasn’t stopped fans from wanting to see him take up the role again. Plus, Mortensen had a reputation of being endearing on multiple occasions on the Lord of the Rings films' sets and sharing his honest thoughts on the trilogy.

When the actor was asked about whether he’d be up for reprising his role for The Lord of the Rings: The Hunt for Gollum, which will be directed by Andy Serkis and produced by Peter Jackson, here’s what he shared:

His answer shows a real reverence for his character. It sounds like he would be open to it, but wouldn’t take the opportunity lightly. Now to see what the rest of the Lord of the Rings cast feels about returning to Middle-Earth!

There’s no argument that The Lord of the Rings’ Gollum is one of the best characters of the franchise due to his tragic backstory and the complexity of his two-character persona. Just when you thought The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey would be the last time you'd see the ring-bearing hobbit, it was announced that Peter Jackson would make a new Lord of the Rings movie based on the memorable character. With a new Gollum movie coming to us, Jackson and Sméagol/Gollum actor Andy Serkis explain the reason for this exciting spinoff.

Warner Bros. announced in February 2023 that more Lord of the Rings movies would be on the way through WB’s New Line Cinema. We so far have the animated fantasy prequel film The Lord of the Rings: The War of Rohirrim coming in December, and then in two years, we’ll get the Peter Jackson-produced film The Hunt for Gollum (working title). Jackson spoke to Deadline about why this spinoff serves as a passion project for him.

The J.R.R. Tolkien movies gave us pieces of Gollum's backstory. He started off as a Stoorish hobbit named Sméagol who came across the One Ring with his cousin and best friend, Deagol, only to kill him to claim the One Ring for himself. As the power of The Ring consumed Sméagol’s mind and body, he aged unnaturally, with his obsession and paranoia turning him into the twisted character of Gollum. He spent centuries guarding his “precious.” 

There’s no word yet on the plot for the new spinoff, but I wonder if it’ll follow closely to the 15-year-old fan film of the same name. 2009’s The Hunt for Gollum had Gandalf sending Aragorn to capture Gollum to prevent him from disclosing the location of the One Ring to Sauron. Whatever the plot ends up being, it’ll give audiences the chance to get to know LOTR’s beloved character like never before.

Andy Serkis will not only reprise Gollum but will sit in the director’s chair for the upcoming spinoff. It may have been over a decade since the last time the British actor channeled the two-sided character, but he said his famed role still hasn’t escaped him.

As The Lord of the Rings movies were in line with Andy Serkis’ best movies, it’s no wonder why the character resonated with him so much. After all, Serkis didn’t simply voice the CGI character. He did motion-capture acting, where his body movements and facial expressions were present in the CGI character. It’s hard to believe that once upon a time, he was mocked for doing Gollum motion capture, being told it would be “the end of our profession.” Luckily, he didn’t listen to his agent when he was advised against playing the iconic role, as he gave a performance that “ruled them all.”

After being a second unit director for The Hobbit films, Andy Serkis’ career continued to rise up directing ambitious movies and continuing motion capture acting. It's all the more reason why it was an easy choice for Peter Jackson to pick the Golden Globe nominee to take the reins in directing the next LOTR project.

With a new film centered on fan-favorite Lord of the Rings character Gollum, audiences will get further exploration of his backstory and see parts of his life that weren’t covered in the Peter Jackson films. With the New Zealand director and LOTR alum Andy Serkis being part of this new fantasy film, hopefully these two won't have any trouble turning this spinoff into a masterpiece audiences will enjoy. You can watch all of The Lord of the Rings movies with your Max subscription.

Update: A few hours after the Hunt For Gollum video was taken off YouTube, the video was restored to the platform. A spokesman for Warner Bros. told i09 that the takedown was a mistake, so it appears, as suggested in our original story, that this may have been an automated takedown. Our original story continues below.

Yesterday’s huge announcement that we will be getting at least two more Lord of the Rings moves from producer Peter Jackson was pretty great news if you're a fan of Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy. That is, unless you’re such a fan of those movies that 15 years ago you created a fan film centered around Gollum. A short film that has been around longer than Jackson’s Hobbit movies just got pulled from YouTube by Warner Bros.

The fan film was called The Hunt For Gollum and if that sounds familiar, it’s because that’s also the working title of the next Lord of the Rings movie, that Peter Jackson will produce and that Andy Serkis will direct, while also reprising his role as Gollum from the previous Lord of the Rings films. The video has been blocked on “copyright grounds” according to the message that appears when you visit the film’s page now. It had amassed over 13 million views prior to being blocked.

While fan films getting in legal trouble or hit with copyright takedowns certainly isn’t unheard of, when it happens, it usually happens shortly after a film is released. The fact that this one had been sitting quietly for a decade and a half implied that nobody had a problem with it. But then there’s the issue of the title.

It’s possible that, while the copyright strike came from WB, it wasn’t anything active from the studio that took it down. Many strikes of this nature happen automatically from YouTube and so this might have happened because WB now has a copyright on the title The Hunt For Gollum, and anything with that same title got taken down by a bot. 

Of course, it’s also possible that the title similarity simply meant that the fan film was brought to the attention of the wrong people at WB for the first time. Despite more than 13 million people having viewed the fan film, maybe WB hadn’t noticed it existed until now.

Copyright strikes can be challenged, but it can be a difficult and drawn-out process. The first question is whether the fan film creators want to bother. It’s possible that especially if this was an automated strike, challenging it could get the film re-listed on YouTube. Since the film pre-dated WB’s use of the title, there’s certainly no argument that the fan film is trying to “cash in” on the new movie in any way.

The Hunt For Gollum is just one of several Lord of the Rings projects on the way. The Lord of The Rings: The War of the Rohirrim release date is set for this December. The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power Season 2 is also expected this year. A second film from Peter Jackson is also planned following Gollum, though exactly what this will be is being kept under wraps at this time.

The Lord of the Rings is arguably one of the most successful film trilogies ever made. It made billions at the box office. It won Academy Awards. It's almost universally praised as one of the most successful adaptations of a popular work ever made. It's not a shock that there have been attempts to reignite that success, both with additional films and now prestige TV series. Even Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson was unable to repeat that success, and yet, he's apparently going to try again.

This morning Warner Bros. announced two new Lord of the Rings films are on the way, with some outlets reporting the first one is set to debut as soon as 2026. The Lord of the Rings: The Hunt For Gollum (a working title) will see Peter Jackson return to produce the film, alongside longtime partners Fran Walsh and Phillippa Boyens. Walsh and Boyens are also writing the screenplay, while Andy Serkis is on board to reprise his role as Gollum and also direct the film. Serkis was a second unit director on The Hobbit films and most recently directed Venom: Let There Be Carnage.

New Lords Of The Rings Movies Could Be Amazing

Needless to say, everything in the preceding paragraph falls into the "things I never thought I'd write" category. It's not a shock we're getting new Lord of the Rings movies or series. That was a guarantee. Animated film The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim's release date is set for December and The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power Season 2 is on the way. But the idea that Peter Jackson would return to the franchise, and in such a major way as to produce two more movies, is more than a little unexpected, and thrilling.

What exactly a Gollum-focused movie would be about is unclear. The title could indicate it will be focused on Sauron's forces searching for the One Ring, and attempting to hunt down Gollum, knowing he had the ring and may know where it is.  It could also be set much earlier, as a sort of origin story explaining in more detail how Smeogol became Gollum. Either, if handled well, could make for a good movie.

On the one hand, a return to Middle-earth that includes Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, and Phillipa Boyens is wonderful news. Those three people brought us the original Lord of the Rings and an absolute labor of love that was massively successful because such work was put into it. At the same time, the trio also brought us The Hobbit movies which were...not treated quite as well.

New Lord Of The Rings Movies Could Also Be A Disaster

The Hobbit movies were rushed. Even Peter Jackson admits he had no time to prepare due to the schedule he was being held to. As a result, they are far below the standard previously set. 

The big question is which trilogy will these new movies be more like. Various outlets are reporting that this movie will arrive in 2026, likely in December, and that would mean the movie will need to be done in less than 18 months, and based on the information released by WB, the script isn't done yet.

To be fair, the WB info doesn't give the 2026 date, so it may be that the quick turnaround is not the plan. As a fan, I certainly hope that's the case. if this movie is going to happen, we can only hope it will be given the attention that the Lord of the Rings was given that made them so good.

Jackson has spent the last several years working outside of feature films. He's been primarily focused on The Beatles, perhaps ironic considering The Beatles once attempted to make a Lord of the Rings movie. He crafted the excellent Disney+ documentary Get Back, and most recently worked to remaster the classic Beatles doc Let it Be, which just debuted on Disney+ this week. Now that that's done, he's apparently ready to go back to the world of hobbits.

Disney+ is known as the place to go for all things Marvel and Star Wars, and of course, it’s home to all of Disney’s 100 years of animation, but over the last few years, the streamer has become a major source of musical content. The recent release and massive success of Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour (Taylor’s Version) was only the latest in a string of concert films that have arrived, and Disney+ subscribers also have access to great musical documentaries, both original films, like Peter Jackson’s The Beatles: Get Back, and legacy content. Queen's famous Montreal concert film is coming to the service and it was just announced that Let It Be, the 1970 documentary film about the production of the titular album, will make its streaming debut on Disney+ next month.

While the release of Let It Be will be a big deal for any Beatles fan, it’s a somewhat surprising move considering that it is coming from Peter Jackson. Jackson is using the same film restoration techniques that were used on Get Back to give new life to the audio and video, but a big part of Get Back, which used outtakes of the same footage that made up Let it Be, was seemingly focused on rebutting the idea, largely popularized by that film, that the Beatles self-destructed while recording the album. I spoke with Jackson before the release of Get Back, and as he told me…

Let It Be is a historic piece of media for Beatles fans as it is seen by many as the film that shows the self-destruction of the Beatles. Let it Be was the band’s second to last album that they recorded together, though it ended up being the final one released. The film was released a month after The Beatles officially broke up.

Considering that Let It Be is all of 80 minutes long, and Jackson’s Get Back is over six hours long, it would seem that Jackson’s film should be the definitive word, one way or another, on just how those late days of The Beatles were. Releasing Let It Be afterward certainly seems to be giving it the last word.

But it’s certainly possible that after more than 50 years, and with newly restored audio and video, viewing Let It Be now will be different. The film was never released on DVD or Blu-ray, and it hasn’t been streaming before, so it’s been quite a while since most people have actually seen it, maybe thanks to time, and thanks to Get Back changing our perspective, the film will be different now. Let it Be arrives on Disney+ May 8.

The directors on this list are among the greatest in the history of cinema, with films that are considered the best of all time; films that will never be forgotten. What about those movies they brought all their tremendous talents to, but which aren’t remembered as well? Here is our list of great movies, by great directors, that don’t get talked about enough these days. 

The Frighteners - Peter Jackson

The Frighteners is such a great movie, and it’s criminally underrated. No, it's not as sprawling or overwhelming as Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films, but it has all the heart and more. Michael J. Fox leads as a con man/exorcist who can see and interact with ghosts. The Frightners is really funny, well-paced, and delightful. 

The King Of Comedy - Martin Scorsese 

When you think of Martin Scorsese, “comedy” is not usually the first word that pops into your head, but The King Of Comedy is really a pretty great movie, and while it’s technically a comedy, it’s really dark. Goodfellas has some comedy in it, like Joe Pesci acting like a clown… but a true (dark) comedy? This Robert De Niro and Jerry Lewis-led film stands alone in Scorsese’s canon. 

Peggy Sue Got Married - Francis Ford Coppola

Peggy Sue Got Married is a deceptively simple film. Unlike Francis Ford Coppola’s more-talked-about epics like The Godfather films and Apocalypse Now, this film, starring Nicolas Cage and Kathleen Turner, is smaller, but that doesn’t mean it’s lesser. It’s a weird time-travel tale, but at its heart, it’s really a love story, and while it's not Coppola’s best work, it’s well worth a watch and should be talked about more often. 

Jackie Brown - Quentin Tarantino

Quentin Taratino has famously said that his next movie, his 10th, could be his last. Whether that holds true or not remains to be seen, but it’s a safe bet Jackie Brown will still be his least talked about.

Strange Days - Kathryn Bigelow

Kathryn Bigelow’s won Oscars (for The Hurt Locker) and she’s directed cult classics (Point Break). Strange Days is certainly closer to the latter. In it, Bigelow dabbles in science fiction, a rarity for her, but it’s unsurprising, as Strange Days was written by her then-husband James Cameron. It doesn’t have the iconic quotes that Point Break has, nor is it as white-knuckle as The Hurt Locker, but it is a great time capsule to filmmaking in the mid-90s and well worth remembering. 

Amistad - Steven Spielberg

Wedged between The Lost World: Jurassic Park and Saving Private Ryan in Steven Spielberg’s filmography, is Amistad. It’s easy to understand why this powerful historical drama revolving around a landmark court case regarding the slave trade is overlooked, but it shouldn’t be. It’s a moving story, told expertly as only Spielberg can, with a monster cast including Matthew McConaughey, Anthony Hopkins, Morgan Freeman, and Djimon Hounsou, among many others. 

Clockers - Spike Lee

Let’s be clear here, Clockers is not Spike Lee’s finest work. It doesn’t reach the heights of movies like Do The Right Thing or Malcolm X, but it's still a really good movie. It gets lost in Lee’s stellar filmography, which is understandable. It’s also a testament to just how good Lee’s career has been. 

Talk Radio - Oliver Stone

Talk Radio has everything you expect from an Oliver Stone movie. Its pacing and storytelling are perfect, it’s a fascinating and terrifying story that pulls from the real-world events of a murdered radio show host. It also has a healthy dose of conspiracy, as any great Stone film does. 

The Bling Ring - Sofia Coppola

Sofia Coppola’s The Bling Ring is a meta-tastic heist film that is not only a ton of fun to watch with celebrity cameos and great acting performances, but it also touches on some of the emerging trends that exploded in the years after the movie came out, notably influencer culture. It’s too often overlooked in Coppola’s stellar filmography. 

The Game - David Fincher

David Fincher is a master, and his filmography is full of great movies, like Se7en and Fight Club. The movie he made between those two classic is The Game with Sean Penn and Michael Douglas. Understandably, it’s overshadowed, but it’s an amazing film that is every bit as good as those two more talked-about movies. Even when people watch Fincher’s whole body of work, The Game gets overlooked and it shouldn’t. 

Casualties Of War - Brian De Palma

Casualties of War was released in 1989, which was the tail end of a slew of excellent Vietnam War movies released in the late ‘80s, like Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, and Hamburger Hill. Despite earning well-deserved praise from critics, the Brian De Palma film bombed, and as such, it's unfortunately one of the director’s least talked about movies when it should be one of the most. 

Matchstick Men - Ridley Scott

Usually, when movie fans talk about Ridley Scott, it’s his sprawling historical epics like Gladiator or Napoleon that dominate the conversation, along with sci-fi classics like Alien and Blade Runner. Matchstick Men is a smaller movie, a dark comedy about a con man with a myriad of personal problems played by Nicolas Cage. It’s a wonderful performance by Cage, and despite not performing well at the box office, it’s been well-reviewed over the years.

Inherent Vice - Paul Thomas Anderson

Inherent Vice from Paul Thomas Anderson is a complicated movie, based on a complicated book by Thomas Pinchon. It’s easy to understand why it’s not as talked about as some of Anderson’s other movies, like There Will Be Blood and Boogie Nights, but it’s every bit as good as those, featuring great acting performances and wonderful cinematography. 

Out Of Sight - Steven Soderbergh

Steven Soderberg is known for stylish filming techniques with snappy dialog and interesting plot twists. It’s all right there in Out Of Sight, but the movie still gets overlooked. It was Soderbergh’s first big-budget film, and maybe that’s why it doesn’t get talked about enough. It was also his first collaboration with George Clooney, which makes it even more confounding that it’s not more popular. 

Barry Lyndon - Stanley Kubrick

It’s hard to really argue that any of Stanley Kubrick’s films are not talked about enough, but Barry Lyndon comes the closest here. It’s most revered for its cinematography, but it’s also a wonderful story. While it doesn’t have the panache of A Clockwork Orange or the scope of 2001: A Space Odyssey, it’s still a Kubrick film and it’s one of the best ever made. 

Stardust - Matthew Vaughn

Matthew Vaughn has quietly put together one of the finest resumes in Hollywood. The Kingsman movies are a hot franchise, he’s dabbled in Marvel, and may have inspired the choice of Daniel Craig as James Bond after directing him in Layer Cake. Stardust seems to get lost in the shuffle, but it’s maybe, low key, his best film. 

Ryan's Daughter - David Lean

David Lean is rightfully most remembered for three films, The Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia, and Doctor Zhivago. Lost in the discussion of those films is Ryan’s Daughter, a retelling of Madame Bovary set at the end of World War I. It was the last film Lean directed for 14 years and we can only wonder what he might have done had he not semi-retired. 

Fantastic Mr. Fox - Wes Anderson

Wes Anderson has developed one of the most distinct styles in film history, which translates brilliantly to animation, as well. Anderson’s first foray into the genre was Fantastic Mr. Fox, starring George Clooney, Meryl Streep, and Bill Murray, among others. While it may never outshine his live-action classics, it should be discussed more as one of his best works. 

Bound - The Wachowskis

The DNA of the Wachowskis is very evident in Bound, their first movie. It was made on a shoestring budget, so it doesn’t have the over-the-top effects of The Matrix series, but you can see where they were headed in their filmmaking. 

Intolerable Cruelty - Coen Brothers

When you have a filmography like the Coen Brothers, inevitably, some of the movies won’t get talked about as much as others. Intolerable Cruelty is one of those that gets lost in the mix, behind movies like The Big Lebowski and others that are among the best movies of the ‘90s and beyond. 

Insomnia - Christopher Nolan

Christopher Nolan is among the most beloved directors of the 21st century, creating what feels like independent films, but with monster budgets. That DNA was on display early in his career with Insomnia, which has everything you’d expect from a Nolan movie, but with less than half the budget of Oppenheimer. 

The Fan - Tony Scott

There are few better action directors in Hollywood history than Tony Scott. Most remembered today for classics like Top Gun, and Days of Thunder, The Fan should be talked about more. It’s not a perfect movie, but De Niro’s performance is terrifying (in a great way) as a baseball fan obsessed with Wesley Snipes' character. It’s action horror, and it’s great. 

Vincent And Theo - Robert Altman

Robert Altman had one of the most up-and-down careers in Hollywood history. After a string of successes in the ‘80s, his career was almost sunk by Popeye. It took years for him to rebound, but he did with Vincent & Theo. That led to a career revival, but it’s hardly remembered anymore, overshadowed by his early and later films. 

She's Having A Baby - John Hughes

One of the biggest reasons John Hughes is so loved by people who came of age in the ‘80s and ‘90s was his ability to write and direct genuine teenage characters. That extended to a young married couple starting their lives together in She’s Having A Baby. It’s not as quotable as some of Hughes’ other movies, but it’s still sharply written and a fun watch. 

Only The Lonely - Chris Columbus

Chris Columbus has some directed some huge films in his career, most notably Home Alone and Harry Potter And The Sorcerer’s Stone. He's also got movies like Mrs. Doubtfire and Adventures in Babysitting on his resume. One film that is not talked about enough is Only The Lonely starring John Candy as a man looking for a wife, but dealing with a controlling mother. 

Beowulf - Robert Zemeckis

Generations of high schoolers have been confounded and frustrated by Beowulf. Some love the old English classic, but many hate it. It takes a bold director to take it on as a movie. Robert Zemeckis makes it work, and work well. Still, given the material, it’s not a surprise it’s not talked about as much as Zemeckis’ more popular movies like Back to the Future. 

Great Expectations - Alfonso Cuaron

Director Alfonso Cuaron has made some of the best movies of the last 20 years, including Roma, Gravity, and Y tu mamá también. One of his films that doesn’t get talked about much anymore is 1998’s Great Expectations starring Gwenyth Paltrow and Ethan Hawke. It’s a bold modernization of the classic Dickens novel that can be polarizing, but still worth talking about more.

Ed Wood - Tim Burton

Of all the movies Tim Burton has made, it’s unsurprising that Ed Wood is one of his least discussed. It’s a love letter to legendary B-Movie director Ed Wood, and despite being filled to the brim with great performances, it's not as popular as many of Burton’s other works. 

Midnight In The Garden Of Good And Evil - Clint Eastwood

Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil is not exactly the kind of film you might expect from Clint Eastwood, but you should. Some of his best work is when he strays away from the tough guy movies he’s so well known for and this is a great one, starring John Cusack and Kevin Spacey. 

Away We Go - Sam Mendes

Sam Mendes is best known for movies that cover heavy topics, movies like American Beauty, 1917, and Road to Perdition. That's probably the reason 2009's Away We Go with John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph isn't talked about as much, but it's a sweet movie about a couple dealing with major changes in their life and how to handle them. 

Sleepers - Barry Levinson

Sleepers is a dark, dark film. It's also really, really good. With an all-star cast that includes Brad Pitt, Dustin Hoffman, Robert De Niro, Kevin Bacon, and many more, it's surprising it doesn't get talked about as much as some of director Barry Levinson's other work, but given the subject matter, it can be a very hard watch.  

High Anxiety - Mel Brooks

Mel Brooks is a living legend and his filmography is filled with some of the most quotable movies of all time. One that doesn't get quoted much, or even talked about much, is High Anxiety. It was, believe it or not, the first time Mel Brooks also played the lead in one of his movies, so that alone should garner more attention. 

Great directors usually have long filmographies, so it's only natural that some of their finest work would be talked about less than their most groundbreaking or biggest films. That said, many movies should be talked about as much as those classics, but aren't. Here's to that changing now! 

Peter Jackson is a multiple Oscar-winning director known for his incredible work with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, King Kong and The Lovely Bones. Earning acclaim of such an accomplished filmmaker is certainly an honor, and the directors of 2023’s horror flick Talk to Me were recently lucky enough to receive this praise. Jackson called it “the best, most intense” movie within the genre that he’s seen in years.

Talk to Me has been a box office hit and become a indie darling since its release. The small A24 film has drawn a sizable audience, and many critics are commending the movie for its intense scares and fantastic horror filmmaking. The movie is terrifying, and utilizes great practical movie-making techniques to execute much of the most horrifying elements, like the very scary monkey hand. The Hobbit director recently told Ahi Films, one of Talk to Me’s film distributors, that he thought it was one of the best horror movies in years, saying (via Newshub):

Jackson is in very good company. The Phillipou brothers, who directed the surprise scary hit, have revealed they received congratulatory messages from horror kings like Steven Spielberg, Ari Aster and Jordan Peele. The movie was even praised by author Stephen King, who knows a thing or two about the genre. There’s clearly something special about Talk To Me that transcends traditional horror tropes, and young filmmakers getting this kind of attention for their first feature film is no small feat. 

Peter Jackson is no stranger to horror himself, as many of his earliest films were within the genre, like The Frighteners and Dead Alive. Many directors get their start within horror movies, as they're often cheap to produce and generate profit. For example, Sam Raimi quickly became a household name amongst horror fans before being tapped to direct three Spider-Man movies. The Phillipou brothers are getting the same kind of buzz, so maybe they will have their own big budget trilogy in the future. 

Talk to Me already has a sequel in the works, so the Phillipou brothers are sticking with horror for the time being. However, there are more Lord of the Rings movies currently in development, so maybe the filmmakers will follow in Peter Jackson’s footsteps and tell their own stories about Middle-Earth in the future. There is precedence, and according to Jackson himself, the Phillipous have a lot of promise. I can’t wait to see what they do next, and what other horror movies capture the attention of great filmmakers such as this one.

Talk to Me is still in theaters, so check it out while you can. Fans of Peter Jackson can check out the franchise director’s own work within horror by streaming The Frighteners right now on Starz. For more information on other terrifying flicks heading to streaming and cinemas this year, consult our upcoming horror movies guide. 

One of the biggest and most beloved movie worlds of all time just got the greenlight to return to the mix – get ready to return to Middle Earth! Warner Bros announced Thursday that the studio plans to revive J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings universe for the big screen. Amidst the big news, here comes the question to rule them all: could the man who famously adapted the previous movies, Peter Jackson, be involved? 

Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav shared during the studio's earning call that a deal has been made to develop “multiple” Lord of the Rings movies. Here’s what Jackson, alongside his LOTR collaborators Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens, shared amidst the news to Variety: 

For the time being, Zaslav did not name any specific filmmakers involved in the future of Lord of the Rings just yet, but evidently Peter Jackson and the other key names who made the previous live-action movies set in Middle Earth thus far are already aware and involved in its early development. We’ll have to wait and see how core to the project Jackson remains, but for the time being, it sounds like the filmmaker is being placed in the loop on all developments. 

Peter Jackson served as writer, director and producer on the original live-action Lord of the Rings film trilogy trilogy and The Hobbit movies. However, he is not involved in the Lord of the Rings TV series that premiered last year, Rings of Power. As the filmmaker previously recalled, he was initially asked if he wanted to be involved upfront, which he shared was an “impossible” question to answer without scripts. Then he claimed he “the scripts never showed up,” and that was the last he heard from the Amazon Studios series. Rings of Power has been renewed for a second season, and the first season can be viewed with an Amazon Prime subscription. 

With that in mind, it sounds like Peter Jackson isn’t not game for being part of more Lord of the Rings movies. The franchise is set to expand thanks to Warner Bros’ new studio leaders Mike De Luca and Pam Abdy brokering the deal. The exciting news comes following previous news that Warner Bros has an anime fantasy film based in Middle Earth called The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim in the works. It’s a prequel that is set to be released on April 12, 2024. 

It’s certainly an exciting time to be a Lord of the Rings fan! Here’s hoping Peter Jackson does have a role in these future movies, because no one has more experience adapting Middle Earth than him. 

Peter Jackson. I’m sorry. Academy Award-winning director, Peter Jackson is probably best known for his work on The Lord of the Rings trilogy, and the (oh, brother) Hobbit trilogy. In fact, a lot of people probably only know him as the LOTR guy. That said, what if I were to tell you that he wasn’t always some prestigious director who now makes Beatles’ documentaries like Get Back, but instead, used to be a total horror hound? What if, in fact, I were to tell you that the man once held the Guinness Book of World Records title for using the most fake blood ever in his (in)famous film, Braindead (often known stateside as Dead Alive)? Did you know that?

Well, while I love The Lord of the Rings, and pretty much all of Peter Jackson’s movies, I’m proud to admit that my absolute favorite of his movies is his debut picture, Bad Taste. This movie is, well, it’s something else. Shot on a shoestring budget in New Zealand, it might not be as popular as Dead Alive, or as commercially viable as something like The Frighteners, but dammit, it’s my all-time favorite movie of his, and I have five reasons why.    

It's Deliciously Gory 

I already mentioned that Dead Alive once used the most fake blood ever in a film, and it’s definitely bloodier than Bad Taste, but, while both movies are considered horror comedies of sorts, I find this movie's gore much funnier, and even more outrageous. And, this is despite Dead Alive having a scene involving a lawnmower and gallons of blood.  

For those who don’t know, the film is about aliens who have come down to Earth with the ultimate intention of having us “for lunch.” Our only hope is the efforts of four men known simply as “The Boys” who are going to save the Earth from the devious (and hungry) aliens. Now, that’s all fine and dandy, and when looking at the pantheon of the best sci-fi movies of all time, Bad Taste doesn’t even come close, even with the tried and true formula of aliens coming to Earth.   

But, where it makes for an underwhelming sci-fi film, it definitely stands head and shoulders above as a horror comedy, as we have a character falling off a cliff, only to survive with his brains leaking out of his skull (Which he holds in place with his belt!), a sheep exploding…FOR NO REASON!, and a chainsaw through the head fatality that leads to one of the best one-liners ever. I’ll tell you, I’ve seen a lot of the best horror movies, and very few of them are even remotely as memorable as Bad Taste.     

Peter Jackson Actually Stars In The Film. In Two Roles! 

The director is known for making cameos in The Lord of the Rings, and they were definitely fun to point out, but for reasons I don’t know – perhaps it was because he had so little manpower and money – he’s actually a central character in Bad Taste, as well as an alien. Not only that, but in a feat of talent, he plays himself fighting himself, all on a very steep looking cliff.    

He's also the Minister, but let’s get back to that leading role, since it’s probably the best character in the entire film. Jackson portrays Derek, one of “The Boys” who’s going to send these “bahstahds” back to outer space. He’s unhinged at the beginning of the film, but totally out of his mind (literally) after he falls off a cliff and has his brains splatter all over some rocks, only to survive and punch a fake looking bird. Honestly, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is a magnificent movie, but Bad Taste is his masterpiece (or rather, his splatterpiece). You think I’m joking!    

It's His Funniest Work To Date 

I would say that a great majority of Peter Jackson’s films have at least a little bit of humor in them. The Frighteners is meant to be a comedy, and it definitely has its moments. And who can forget “I kick ass for the Lord!” in Dead Alive? Plus, as needlessly serious as The Hobbit movies were, the filmmaker was still able to slip in at least some whimsy in what probably should have been a full-out comedy to begin with.   

But, Bad Taste is hilarious all the way through. From the very first scene when we hear the aliens attacking somebody, and a voice saying, “Though they may be a bit showy, I think this is a job for REAL MEN,” while pressing a button that reads “The Boys” which is right beneath another button that reads, “The Queen” (as if the queen and The Boys are on equal footing when it comes to speed dialing for help), the whole film is a laugh riot throughout.

Seriously, if you’re any real friend of mine, then you’ve seen Bad Taste because I made you watch it with me. It’s honestly the kind of film that needs to be seen to be believed, and if we’re friends, I’ve made you watch it. And if you were lucky, only once!  

It's A Horror Movie Set Mostly In The Day Time 

I once wrote an article pitting Hereditary against Midsommar to see which was the better Ari Aster film, and even though Hereditary won, I have to give major kudos to Midsommar for being a horror movie set almost entirely in the daytime. That’s not easy! And, even though Bad Taste isn’t really a horror movie, per se, as it isn’t scary in the slightest, most of it takes place in the sunny countryside of New Zealand, so all the gore and blood is even more vibrant since there is so much sunlight.    

I can’t stress how much I love this, though, since it’s a film that is full of color. This adds to the overall personality of the movie, which seems to be missing a bit in Peter Jackson's movies as of late. Yes, his imagination is always on full display whenever he directs an actual movie, but I think that by setting Bad Taste almost entirely in the daylight, it adds even more flair and character to this horror movie than if it had mostly taken place in the dark. I love it!  

It's A Great Indication Of The Brilliant Director He Would Later Become 

Lastly, I always love watching a director’s entire filmography. I ranked Paul Thomas Anderson’s movies, as well as Rob Zombie’s movies. And, one thing I always love to see from a director is the trajectory from the very first movie to the most recent one. Sometimes, prominent directors make a great movie on their first try, and Peter Jackson is no exception.     

Except, Jackson is an interesting case study. Whereas a lot of directors usually hew closely to the style that they started with, he's made massive leaps and bounds throughout his career, going from the cheaply made (but immensely entertaining) all the way to some of the biggest movies of all time.

And yet, you can see his charm, charisma, and sense of humor from the very first film. Sure, he would have to calm down with all the blood and gore to become the mainstream director he is today, but like Guillermo del Toro, you can tell deep down that even though he's now an Academy Award winning director, deep down, he’s still the young lad who chainsawed an alien from head to genitals, and then slid out, covered in gore, only to proclaim, “I’m born again!” That same Peter Jackson is still with us today, and we couldn’t be any more blessed to have him.

Have you ever seen Peter Jackson’s original splatterpiece, Bad Taste? For more news on this director and many others, make sure to swing by here often!  

The production of the Lord of the Rings trilogy of films was an epic undertaking perhaps not unlike the quest to destroy the one ring. It was unclear at the beginning if making a trilogy of films in one massive production was even possible. In the end, we got one of the most incredible franchises in movie history, but tensions on the set were, as one might expect, quite high at different points, leading to Jackson using some strong language regarding the people who were giving him money.

In a new interview with The Telegraph (via CBR), director Peter Jackson discusses a situation during the filming where LOTR studio New Line Cinema was apparently so concerned with cost overruns that a member of the studio called Jackson in the middle of filming to basically threaten him if spending didn't get under control. Jackson explains…

It’s certainly understandable why New Line Cinema would have been concerned about costs getting out of control. Any one of the Lord of the Rings films would likely have run the risk of going over budget just based on the scope alone. Sometimes expensive movies end up making a lot of money, and sometimes they do not. While there were certainly some opportunities for cost savings by making all three movies at once, you’re still making three movies at once, meaning that cost overruns could go sideways by a factor of three, which is essentially what happened with the cost of The Hobbit films years later.

From the way producer Barrie M. Osborne, relayed the message, it certainly sounds like he wasn’t one of the people bringing pitchforks or torches to Peter Jackson’s house, he was just relaying the message of what somebody else was going to say. As such, Jackson makes it clear he wasn’t mad at Osborne, but he did tell the producer to relay a message to the studio, and he did not watch his language. Jackson continued…

While this likely wasn’t the only call like this that Peter Jackson got during the years that Lord of the Rings was in production, in the end, he got to make the movies that he wanted, whatever the final cost was. And it worked out for New Line as the Lord of the Rings franchise went on to making billions of dollars and win several Oscars. In the end, letter Peter Jackson get back to work was probably the right call.  

The world of Middle-earth is closer than ever to coming to television thanks to Amazon Prime’s The Rings of Power, but its setting in the Second Age doesn’t mean that it’ll be a prequel to Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings film trilogy in the Third Age. While characters like Galadriel and Elrond have roles in the series (and appeared in the latest big trailer), they won’t the same versions as those that appeared in the movies, and the director has said that he was ghosted about the possibility of contributing to the project. Amazon has a different take on the situation. 

What Peter Jackson Said About The Rings Of Power

The Lord of the Rings films were epic back when they released from 2001-2003, and have become iconic in the two decades since. The Hobbit trilogy proved that Peter Jackson could bring his Middle-earth magic touch back in time for adventures set before the Fellowship came together, so it was only natural for fans to wonder if Amazon’s The Rings of Power would have a connection to the films… or Jackson himself. Recently, Jackson was featured in The Hollywood Reporter’s Awards Chatter podcast, and after confirming that he’ll be watching the new show, he shared:

Jackson went on to say that he has “no complaints at all,” and that “it’s a cause to celebrate” if anybody makes a good TV show or film since filmmaking “is hard enough.” He also shared that he’s looking forward to “actually seeing it as a perfectly neutral viewer,” when he was never able to have the experience that so many others did when it came to watching his Lord of the Rings films. To hear Peter Jackson tell it, he was ghosted but isn't upset about it. 

How Amazon Responded To Peter Jackson's Comments

Amazon didn’t waste any time with a response to what Peter Jackson said about at one time thinking that he’d at least be sent the scripts for The Rings of Power. With the premiere of the show (which was rumored as far back as 2017 before the streamer made a major commitment) less than two months away, Amazon Studios made a statement to THR:

This statement fits with the reports from back in 2018 that Amazon was reaching out to Peter Jackson (among others) for the show, but no official announcement was ever made. Amazon’s clarification that they were “obligated” to keep the show and films separate is particularly intriguing in light of alleged sources (cited by THR) saying that the estate of author J.R.R. Tolkien (who died himself back in 1973) was opposed to Jackson having any involvement in The Rings of Power. Amazon paid $250 million to that estate for the rights to make the show. 

The Tolkien estate not wanting Peter Jackson involved with an adaptation wouldn’t be surprising, in light of comments made about the Lord of the Rings film trilogy. Christopher Tolkien, the son of the late author, had some unflattering comments about how the films “gutted” the source material. As it stands, the upcoming series will not be set in the same universe as Jackson’s films, but the director is looking forward to seeing the new adaptation of Tolkien’s world, and he’s surely not the only one. 

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power premieres on Friday, September 2 for viewers with an Amazon Prime subscription. If you still need some viewing options for the remaining weeks before the journey back to Middle-earth, check out our 2022 TV premiere schedule!

Taika Waititi has become so massive for his work in the later Thor movies and in the Oscar-winning Jojo Rabbit, but it all really started with What We Do In The Shadows. After directing a short in 2005 that first brought to life the comedic idea alongside frequent collaborator Jemaine Clement, Waititi later made the film in New Zealand, and it has since spawned a popular FX series. While recently speaking about the original vampire mockumentary, the filmmaker and actor recalled a funny connection it has to The Hobbit trilogy. 

Waititi, who is currently promoting Thor: Love and Thunder ahead of the Marvel movie’s upcoming release, visited The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. Given the host’s love for all things Lord of the Rings, Colbert asked him if he spoke to the great Peter Jackson ahead of shooting films in his home country of New Zealand. From that question sparked a hilarious story about how 2014’s What We Do in the Shadows was made. In Waititi's words: 

Yes, you read that right. According to Taika Waititi, the green screen used in the What We Do In The Shadows movie was actually stolen from the set of The Hobbit films. The filmmaker also said this: 

Welp, that’s a heck of a way for Taika Waititi and Peter Jackson to be connected. The 2014 vampire movie was reportedly working with a $1.6 million budget, whereas each The Hobbit film reportedly cost $150 million to produce for each movie. So, I mean… the production probably was all good losing some stolen materials, especially if they were taken after the movies had finished filming. When you think about it, Waititi and the What We Do in the Shadows crew were making good use of perhaps set-to-be discarded set pieces. 

Waititi’s small vampire movie received positive praise from critics and audiences alike, but did not make much money commercially and barely screened in the United States. The movie made just $7.2 million at the worldwide box office and it was reportedly one of the most pirated movies of 2014, likely due to its lack of distribution. Of course it led to a TV series that began in 2019 and will return for Season 4 as part of Hulu’s July new releases. 

Taika Waititi directed Thor: Love and Thunder, which premiered on Thursday to glowing first reactions from Marvel fans. The movie, which certainly has enough budget to have green screens of its own, hits theaters on July 8. 

Given that 2016’s Rogue One: A Star Wars Story delved into how the Rebellion obtained the plans for the first Death Star, it stood to reason that Darth Vader would eventually show up. Sure enough, the looming Sith Lord appeared in two scenes, with the latter seeing him slice through a group of Rebel troopers while trying to reacquire the space station’s schematics. It was among the Star Wars movie’s best scenes, and Gary Whitta, who worked on the Rogue One screenplay, recently recalled how Lord of the Rings’ Peter Jackson reacted when he first saw this moment that had been kept secret from the main cast.

Gary Whitta was the first writer to tackle the Rogue One script, and while Chris Weitz and Tony Gilroy were ultimately credited for the movie’s screenplay, Whitta received a ’Story By’ credit with John Knoll. Upon seeing that Rogue One had been trending on Twitter, Whitta shared the following memories:

For the man who brought J.R.R. Tolkien’s rich mythology to life in the original Lord of the Rings film trilogy and in the Hobbit movies that followed almost a decade later to react so viscerally to Rogue One’s big Darth Vader scene says a lot. Whether it was Jackson being on the movie’s set when that scene was shot or Whitta catching a glimpse of it during the editing process, it was immediately clear to both men that Darth Vader’s fury being unleashed in Rogue One’s final minutes would be a hit with audiences. They were correct, and what makes it all even more impressive was that scene was a last-minute addition.

Rogue One marked Darth Vader’s first theatrical appearance since 2005’s Revenge of the Sith, with James Earl Jones vocally reprising the character and Spencer Wilding physically portraying him. Earlier in the movie, Vader summoned Ben Mendelsohn’s Orson Krennic on Mustafar to answer for the Death Star’s attack on Jedha, and he left the encounter with one of the Sith Lord’s trademark Force chokes and a groan-worthy pun as a bonus. Vader’s Rogue One appearance occurred not long after he recurred in Star Wars Rebels Season 2. 

Luckily for fans of both Rogue One and Darth Vader, they have much to look forward to thanks to upcoming Star Wars TV shows. First up, Obi-Wan Kenobi premieres on Disney+ May 25, and it will see Hayden Christensen reprising Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader opposite Ewan McGregor’s title protagonist. Christensen will also appear as Anakin in the Ahsoka series, but it’s unclear if we’ll also see him in his Vader form. Then there’s Andor, which will follow Diego Luna’s Cassian Andor five years before the events of Rogue One. That show doesn’t have a set release date yet, but perhaps Vader could surface there too.

Keep checking back with CinemaBlend for all the biggest news items concerning the Star Wars franchise. If you’re curious what’s coming up outside of a galaxy far, far away, look through the 2022 movie releases on the theatrical calendar.

If you’re going to spearhead making a six hour documentary about The Beatles, you’re going to have to be a pretty big fan. Peter Jackson certainly is that, and the Disney+ documentary series The Beatles: Get Back is a testament to that love. The accomplished director of The Lord of the Rings certainly had his favorite Beatles song going into the production, but making the new Disney+ documentary has caused him to have a new appreciation for the songs on the Beatles Let it Be album, so much so he says his current favorite Beatles song is the somewhat surprising, but no less amazing, “Dig a Pony” 

The Beatles: Get Back focuses on the Fab Four and the creation of the Let it Be album. To put the documentary together Peter Jackson watched and listened to hundreds of hours of audio and video. Being that deep in this one single album is the sort of thing that you’d think would either make a person fall deeply in love with the music, or never want to hear it again. I recently spoke with Jackson and he told me that making The Beatles: Get Back gave him a new appreciation for the songs, including making him a massive fan of one song that he’d never really cared for previously. He explained...

Every Beatles album includes at least a couple of songs that have become standards. Let it Be actually has several. If somebody told you their favorite Beatles song ever was “Across the Universe” or “Let it Be” or “The Long and Winding Road” or “Get Back” you probably wouldn’t be that surprised, but “Dig a Pony” is a somewhat unusual choice. 

“Dig a Pony’ may be Peter Jackson’s current favorite Beatles song, he told me that his traditional answer to that question has been “Penny Lane,” but the truth is that Jackson really loves all the music that you’ll hear in The Beatles: Get Back. After watching all the footage and seeing all these songs being created, he finds them all quite special. He continued...

The first episode of The Beatles: Get Back arrived on Disney+ on November 24 and the next two parts will be released on the following two nights. Making for three nights of appointment television for any serious Beatles fan.  

A lot has changed about the movie industry in the last couple of years. The global pandemic pushed several films that were intended to be blockbuster theatrical releases to streaming services. With Disney’s own streaming service being a major hit from the beginning, it wasn’t surprising to see movies like Hamilton make the move to Disney+ rather than be released in theaters, but no production changed quite as much as Peter Jackson’s The Beatles: Get Back. The documentary tells the story of The Beatles recording of the Let it Be album, with footage that has been largely unseen in 50 years. It went from being a theatrical movie to a six hour long documentary series on Disney+, and it’s all thanks to The Beatles. 

I recently had the opportunity to speak with director Peter Jackson about The Beatles: Get Back, and I asked him how the project transformed from a theatrical production to a streaming series. He told me that the decision to put Get Back on Disney+ didn't actually come from Disney, it came from The Beatles...

It seems that The Beatles very much had creative control over what happened with Get Back, That being said, to be honest The Beatles: Get Back was probably destined to be a streaming limited series. A traditional theatrical release was going to be tough. 

The Beatles: Get Back Was Just Too Big For Theaters

As Peter Jackson explained, even from the beginning, making Get Back a theatrical length film proved to be a challenge because there was just so much material it was difficult to fit it all in a two hour film. Fans would have only been able to see the tiniest sliver of how Let it Be was really created. Jackson says...

Get Back is a chronological look behind the scenes as The Beatles put an album together using footage that was shot as it happened. Since the recording sessions lasted weeks, limiting the total run time to even two and half hours would have resulted in only seeing the smallest piece of each day. It would have been difficult to tell a compelling story like that. 

Peter Jackson And His Editor Made The Movie They Wanted And Just Didn't Tell Anybody

Peter Jackson said that he and his editor Jabez Olssen certainly did what they could to make a theatrical cut, but then, when the pandemic happened, and they had an entire extra year to work, Jackson says they just decided to make the version they thought worked best, regardless of how long it was. Jackson continued...

Rather than trying to cram the important bits into a limited runtime, Peter Jackson and his editor instead decided to work in the other direction. They figured they'd tell the story they wanted to tell first, and then, potentially see about cutting it down later. Though certainly that was going to be tough with a 6-hour rough cut. 

The Beatles: Get Back Goes To Disney+ 

So now Peter Jackson has a six hour cut of The Beatles: Get Back when both the Beatles and Disney are expecting a 2.5 hour feature. Jackson says he presented the Beatles with the six hour version, and, while a bit surprised, they all loved it so much that they then told Disney that the six-hour version was what Get Back was now...

Considering the fact that the Walt Disney Company is the biggest entertainment company on the planet, you wouldn’t think anybody could simply dictate how content is handled, but apparently, when you’re the Beatles, you can do that, though there was no indication that Disney had any problem with this. Under the circumstances, with the pandemic making a lot of changes to releases, it probably made sense to Disney to make The Beatles Get Back a Disney+ project.

And for Beatles fans, it just means we get more Beatles, and that’s not a bad thing. The Beatles: Get Back debuts with part one on November 24 and runs through November 26. 

The Beatles are, quite simply, one of the biggest bands that has ever existed. Considering their popularity, it’s no surprise that an endless amount has been written about them and multiple documentaries and even dramatic films have been made about them. And while we unfortunately lost John Lennon far too early, the rest of the Beatles have been more than willing to talk about their time making music when they’ve been asked. But for the new Disney+ documentary series The Beatles: Get Back, Peter Jackson decided he did not want to ask. While he could have brought Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr in for modern interviews, Jackson says that’s not the way he wanted to tell the story.

The Beatles: Get Back is based on hundreds of hours of material that was produced in 1969 when John, Paul, George, and Ringo came together to record music for the album that would become Let it Be. Most of this material has never seen the light of day. I had a chance to speak with Director Peter Jackson about the documentary series and he told me that he felt that the footage by itself tells a story that is exciting and interesting enough that it didn’t need modern context. He explained... 

Peter Jackson told me that finding a story to tell in The Beatles: Get Back was quite easy because the footage itself basically does that already. If you follow The Beatles during each day of this recording session, you see how the various pieces of Let it Be come together. There are plenty of ups and towns and tension and drama along the way to make the story compelling for the viewer. 

While it would certainly be interesting to get the impressions of Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, as well as, potentially, the friends or family of John Lennon and George Harrison, Jackson felt adding a modern perspective would take viewers out of the moment, and he wanted everybody to go along for the ride. A modern look back would have the benefit of hindsight, and that’s what Jackson wanted to remove, as he said...

While we know what the final product of these sessions were, we certainly don’t know the truth of the day-by-day, and any fan of the Beatles is going to want to watch The Beatles Get: Back and watch this story unfold. The documentary series airs in three parts on three straight nights beginning November 24. 

This December will mark the 20th anniversary of Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings' theatrical release, an occasion that would mark the beginning of the film franchise's impact on the high fantasy genre. Now, many are wondering if a cast reunion could be on the horizon, but could it really happen? Well, franchise star Elijah Wood weighs in on the possibility of all the main cast members coming back together again.

It would be pretty awesome if a reunion between Elijah Wood and the rest of the Fellowship could happen in New Zealand, the place that's provided Middle Earth with its beautiful landscapes throughout the franchise (which will soon change for the upcoming series), yet Wood explains that may not be possible. In an interview with Looper, the Lord of the Rings star explained how the pandemic may make such an event hard to pull off. Here it is in his own words:

Given the world's current health situation, Elijah Wood's concerns are incredibly valid, as there would certainly be plenty of logistics to figure out should an in-person meeting happen. While it may seem as though the actor isn’t confident that there will be a 20th anniversary reunion, it does sound like there could be a reunion at some point. The actor would go on to add some optimistic sentiments during the same interview:

The idea of the original cast sitting at a huge table, banquet-style, 20 years older than they are in the Lord of the Rings trilogy is making me a little teary eyed, honestly. While a reunion may not be happening this year, fans do have some more Lord of the Rings content to look forward to in the near future. Amazon’s Lord of the Rings spin-off series is set to premiere next year, and even if it’s not the OG cast, its outrageously massive budget will hopefully lead to some pretty epic adventures.

And for those pining to se more of Elijah Wood and the original stars, you can stream the Lord of the Rings trilogy on HBO Max.

Sometimes actors just know when a role is right for them. When that happens, they’re usually willing to go to some pretty extreme lengths to prove they should be cast. In Elijah Wood’s case, he went all out to make sure that he made as strong a case as possible that he should play Frodo Baggins in the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Nearly two decades ago, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring hit theaters. Fans all over the world were captivated by the scenery, the special effects, and the cast -- including Elijah Wood, whose wide-eyed portrayal of the ring bearer Frodo Baggins helped cement the film as a modern classic. These days, Wood is staying busy with new film and TV roles (and occasionally playing Animal Crossing). But he still has vivid memories of his time as a hobbit. In a segment for GQ, the actor went into detail about how he tried to book the role that would propel him to global stardom. It turns out he went above and prove he was the man to play Frodo:

Elijah Wood also remembered the extra lengths he had to go to in order to get his audition footage to director Peter Jackson, since this all happened well before the digital age fully took hold. And his comments are sure to bring up memories for certain people:

That opportunity included moving to New Zealand to film all three of the Lord of the Rings films, which was an experience that obviously left an indelible impression on the actor. He recently shared his dismay at the news that Amazon’s LOTR series will be moving to the UK for Season 2 -- but he would know better than almost anyone how important the location is for getting Middle Earth right.

Elijah Wood isn’t the only Lord of the Rings alumnus who has opened up about the casting experience for the trilogy. Funnily enough, Ian McKellen doesn’t have a clear memory of how he ended up being cast as Gandalf -- though it’s safe to assume it didn’t involve trips to the park and late-night tape edits.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy is currently available to stream on HBO Max.

Part of the magic of the Lord of the Rings franchise is its ability to really put us in the fantasy, and a lot of that has to do with the spectacular job the makeup artists and costume designers did with transforming plain ol’ humans into mythical monsters and species. While it’s super entertaining for us watching through a screen, it’s apparently not always fun for the actors underneath all that makeup and prosthetics. In fact, Lord of the Rings alum Stephen Ure, who played one of the Orcs with speaking lines, had a silent panic attack during a scene due to all the heavy prosthetics he was wearing on his face.

Lord of the Rings’ Stephen Ure recently recalled a moment of panic in between shots where he felt suffocated by the prosthetics that turned him into one of the orcs we see on screen. It sounds pretty terrifying even second hand, let alone if you are actually the person it is happening to! Here it is in his own words to Thrillist:

Getting into character on a movie set can, in many cases, take hours, and that was surely the case for a lot of actors on set of Lord of the Rings. In the same interview, Stephen Ure says he pretty much had to suffer under all of the weight on his face and keep himself from ripping the heavy prosthetics off. I’m sure producers are grateful the actor chose not to do this one for specific reason as well. This is what Ure had to say on the matter:

In the 20 years since Stephen Ure’s portrayal of an orc in one of the most well-known franchises in history, you would hope that the use of prosthetics has become a little easier on actors. Hopefully, time has eliminated the panic attack-triggering effects heavy prosthetics can have. Some films do use CGI and other digital means to transform actors but, sometimes, getting the very real effect of prosthetics is worth it. Yet as I mentioned before, you have to remember that fans aren’t the ones wearing them.

To suffer in silence like that in the name of saving time and money on the production is just pure professionalism. He likely is not alone in his experience, either, because a ton of movies use heavy prosthetics on the faces of actors - it takes a lot of talent to work under those circumstances! I never thought it’d be thanking one of the Lord of the Rings baddies, and an orc for that matter, but your sacrifice is very appreciated by this fan, Stephen Ure!

Lord of the Rings may be the most iconic series in existence - at the very least, it’s in the running. Even though the theatrical adaptations of the decades-old novels was released almost 20 years ago, Lord of the Rings remains a hot topic in today’s culture. With numerous spinoffs and more merchandise and fan art than you can count, it’s not a mystery why director and producer Peter Jackson is still talking about LOTR, his main claim to fame.

The Lord of the Rings universe is so vast and the culture so involved, that fans never tire of hearing more about it and welcome the chance to dive back into Middle Earth (if they ever left). Since the series and the prequel series The Hobbit have been wrapped up and are pretty common knowledge, Jackson can revel in his successes and talk lightly on Middle Earth without the worry of revealing spoilers and dodging questions. As such, in an interview on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, Peter Jackson spoke about his favorite Lord of the Rings scene and what makes it so special. In Jackson's words:

As laid out above, the scene Peter Jackson mentions has Gollum/Sméagol arguing with the two sides of himself while Frodo and Sam are asleep in the background is his favorite scene of the series. This leads to Sméagol fighting with his darker Gollum side over the idea of killing the boys and taking back his "Precious."

This is an interesting pick for Peter Jackson, as he later states that he neither wrote nor directed that scene. Even more so, the scene began as a light one, with not many people involved and was needed only to make Sméagol's split personality more clear.

Even though it started out as a light, but necessary, scene, it is now seen as an iconic one. Which Lord of the Rings scene isn’t iconic, though, am I right? It is the first scene that really hits it home that Sméagol is completely crazy, and the heroic duo are in some serious hot water with him as their guide.

It’s also the scene that puts us fully on Sam’s side, as he wants nothing to do with the creature. Before the scene, we may have sided Frodo’s compassion and trusting nature. It’s the scene that made it hurt worse when Frodo continues to go with Sméagol over trusting Sam’s gut, causing a rift in the friendship.

In the end, It’s kind of refreshing to think that out of all the truly epic scenes there are to choose from in The Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson’s favorite pick is such a humble one. Keep checking back with CinemaBlend for more LOTR-related news.

Peter Jackson’s career, much like Guillermo del Toro’s, is a tale of two directors. On one hand, Peter Jackson movies can be seen as artistic, like the Oscar-winning The Lord of the Rings. And on the other hand, well, there is no other hand, because it was chopped off by a lawnmower. Yeah, Peter Jackson used to be that kind of director.

And really, depending on your taste in movies, you might think that one half of his career is better than the other. Personally, I admire both sides, which is why this list is so fun to make. The same director of the brilliant They Shall Not Grow Old also directed a film where a preacher kicks ass for the Lord. I mean, sure, Peter Jackson will never be confused for a Martin Scorsese, but Martin Scorsese never did a movie about perverse, drug-abusing puppets, either. That’s why there’s only one Peter Jackson. God bless that Kiwi.

14. The Lovely Bones (2009)

I’m pretty sure that the general consensus is that The Lovely Bones is a bad movie. But it’s not. A better word for it might be uneven. Based on the popular novel, The Lovely Bones stars Saoirse Ronan as a murdered teenager who watches over her family from “the in-between.” All the while, her family tries to figure out who murdered her. Stanley Tucci, who also stars, was even nominated for an Oscar!

But I do understand its problems. At times a beautiful film, some of the movie often falls into maudlin territory, making it feel quite uneven. It kind of reminds me of What Dreams May Come, in both the good (the visuals) and the bad (the story) ways. In the end, The Lovely Bones is fine. It’s just also forgettable.

13. The Hobbit: The Battle Of The Five Armies (2014)

I go back and forth on which Hobbit movie is the worst, and today, I’m thinking The Battle of the Five Armies. The third movie in this unnecessary trilogy sees the head dwarf, Thorin II Oakenshield, played by Richard Armitage, going a little batty inside the Lonely Mountain while a war gets ready to rage outside his doorstep. Then, there’s this long, exhausting battle at the end, and the trilogy goes out with a whimper rather than a bang.

I know some people like this movie, but I just find it tiresome. The final battle goes on forever, and none of it works for me. Pass!

12. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

The Desolation of Smaug is also really bad, but maybe not as bad as The Battle of the Five Armies. This one sees the dwarves and Bilbo sneaking into the den of Smaug, a greedy dragon voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch.

The Smaug stuff is good, but it’s all the other padding around it that stinks. I distinctly remember the Smaug sections in the novel, but all the other stuff not in the book is just long and tedious. Honestly, there is a good movie in The Hobbit trilogy. But it would only take one movie. Not 3!

11. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

While I don’t necessarily think An Unexpected Journey is good, I do think it’s the best in the trilogy. Maybe it’s because there was so much hope that this trilogy might be even remotely close to being as good as The Lord of the Rings trilogy. This film sees Bilbo off with the dwarves on their journey to The Lonely Mountain, which houses the dragon Smaug. It’s kind of fun, and the dwarves don’t wear out their welcome as they do in the later movies.

But it takes itself far too seriously. The Hobbit novel is not The Lord of the Rings, as The Hobbit is funny and fun. So why this movie has to feel so epic is beyond me, and it definitely doesn’t work in its favor.

10. King Kong (2005)

King Kong is one of the greatest movies of all time, so does Peter Jackson’s version measure up? Well, no, but he does a damn good job trying. This version, starring Naomi Watts, Jack Black, and Adrian Brody, follows the story pretty closely, but modernizes it visually, making the scenes on Skull Island especially vivid.

Overall, the story is great, and the only thing really keeping it back is the fact that you know that this is more of a passion project than anything that really needed to be made.

9. Meet The Feebles (1989)

In the intro, I mentioned that Jackson had two sides to his career, and Meet the Feebles is certainly on the other side. The best way to describe this movie is that it’s like The Muppets on LSD. It’s about some Henson-esque puppets trying to get their show on the air, but it’s full of sex, drug-use, and violence. It was The Happytime Murders before The Happytime Murders was a thing, but even better, if you ask me.

It’s all in the characters, as there are no live actors in this movie. Instead, you get a sex starved hippo, a rat in the porn industry, and a horny hedgehog. The only thing holding it back is some of the humor, which isn’t as effective as it wants to be. Still, for better or worse, there’s no other film like Meet the Feebles.

8. The Frighteners (1996)

After the critically acclaimed Heavenly Creatures, Peter Jackson’s follow-up kind of went back to his horror comedy roots. The Frighteners, starring Michael J. Fox is about a dude who works with ghosts to con people into thinking he’s exorcising them. In a way, it’s sort of like a bizarro version of Ghostbusters, but weirder, if you can imagine that.

It’s mostly because of Michael J. Fox who plays a lovable jerk just so well. The special effects are dated, but still look great, and it’s just a really fun film, especially when the murders start getting blamed on Fox’s character. If you’re a cool kid, then you love The Frighteners.

7. Bad Taste (1987)

I’ll die on this hill, but Peter Jackson’s first movie, Bad Taste, is my favorite film of his. It’s basically Invasion of the Body Snatchers as aliens come down to earth and pose as humans. But it’s super gory, with blood splatter galore and ridiculous, over the top violence. Peter Jackson plays multiple roles, including my favorite as a nerd named Derek who only fights because Derek’s don’t run.

I know Bad Taste is a bad movie. But it’s the best kind of bad movie. It’s the kind that my good friend, Mickey, found at a video store, and just had to share with all of his friends, myself included. Screw The Lord of the Rings! Bad Taste forever!

6. Dead Alive (1992)

Dead Alive, or Braindead as it’s known around the rest of the world, is like Bad Taste squared. It It’s about a man, played by Timothy Balme, who lives with his mother. Well, one day, his mother is bitten by a rabid animal, and she starts a zombie outbreak in the town. The movie still, to this day, holds the record for the most fake blood in a movie with the infamous lawnmower scene.

Dead Alive is hilarious and bloody as all get out. It’s the kind of film that commits to being as gross and violent as possible, but it’s also super tongue-in-cheek like only a Peter Jackson movie can be. I prefer Bad Taste, but I’m well aware that Dead Alive is the better movie. It’s all killer, no filler.

5. Heavenly Creatures (1994)

Based on a true story about the 1954 Parker-Hulme murder, Heavenly Creatures is a really interesting turning point for the director that still hewed close to his horror sensibilities. Starring Malanie Lynskey and Kate Winslet in their film debuts, Heavenly Creatures is about two friends who share an intense friendship that leads to murder once they get separated.

Kind of like The Lovely Bones, Heavenly Creatures has a fantasy element to it in the world the two girls create together. But it’s much more effective in this movie, and the story and acting is compelling all throughout. It’s a disturbing, yet beautiful movie, and one of the director’s best.

4. The Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

Some consider The Two Towers to be the best in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. To me, it’s a little slow. Still, as the middle film in the series, it checks off all the qualifications for greatness. The story this time around is even more expansive as the fellowship is split up. We also get talking trees, the vile Saruman preparing the orcs, and of course the Helm’s Deep battle. It’s epic and wonderful, and you care about all of these characters deeply.

Still, The Two Towers is usually the one I find myself looking down at my phone the most with. I do love it, but Treebeard just bores me to tears. I’m sorry.

3. The Lord of The Rings: The Fellowship of The Ring (2001)

Peter Jackson got everything right the first time around. This film sets Frodo, played by Elijah Wood, off on his journey to dispose of the cursed ring. I mean, I don’t have to describe it any more than that since you’ve already seen. Everybody has.

The first one really works though since it’s exciting throughout and all of the characters have such excellent personalities. The fact that Peter Jackson could turn New Zealand into Middle Earth and it all works is still astounding, even to this day.

2. They Shall Not Grow Old (2018)

They Shall Not Grow Old is like no other film in Peter Jackson’s filmography, mostly because it’s a documentary, but also because of its subject matter. It’s about the first World War, and features 100-year-old footage, but colorized and brought to life in a way that truly does fit the title of the film. I imagine this movie being shown in History classes in school from here on out since it truly does bring the past to life.

But it’s just an overall great documentary, showing what it meant, and means, to be a soldier. The men were young, and looking at the old, grainy footage doesn’t show just how brave these people truly were. It’s a brilliant movie and I would say it is Peter Jackson’s best film, but I know I can’t call it that. I know that award has to go to…

1. The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King (2003)

I mean, it had to be The Return of the King, right? The only fantasy film to ever win Best Picture, The Return of the Ring gets everything right. Even with its 80 or so endings.

Usually, final films in a trilogy aren’t nearly as good as the middle movie in the trilogy. But The Return of the King defies all odds as it's actually the best of the three. Peter Jackson won Best Director for this epic finale, and it was well deserved.

Peter Jackson is a one-of-a-kind auteur who cut his teeth on splatterfest films. But you already know my picks. What are your favorite Peter Jackson movies? Let me know in the poll or in the comments section down below.

This poll is no longer available.

Joining a massive film franchise in a major role can’t be easy for an actor to do. What’s even more difficult, though, is when an actor has to replace someone in a major role in a massive film franchise. This is the exact situation that Viggo Mortensen found himself in when he snagged the role of Aragorn in The Lord of the Rings franchise after Stuart Townsend was originally cast in the role. So how did Mortensen feel about the situation? Well, he’s now provided some thoughts on the matter.

Years ago, Stuart Townsend was set to take on the role of Aragorn in Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings, but he was suddenly replaced by Mortensen the day before filming began. It was definitely an unusual and somewhat unfortunate situation and, when Mortensen reflected on it with The Irish Times, even he had to admit that it was “awkward.” He also revealed the he even met Townsend sometime later:

I guess, at the very least, it is nice that the two did eventually meet, though Mortensen didn’t give any major details other than the fact that he said hello. One can only hope that both weren’t too uncomfortable when it happened.

As rough as they may be, situations like these do tend to happen from time to time, especially when it comes to high-profile properties like The Lord of the Rings. Some superhero fans may remember that the role of James Rhodes a.k.a. War Machine in the MCU was originated by Terrence Howard and that he would be let go after Iron Man and be replaced by Don Cheadle. Although Howard did actually get to play the role in this case, there’s a chance he likely still feels the sting of being let go from what is now a billion-dollar franchise.

In regard to Viggo Mortensen, he ultimately proved that his casting was no fluke, as he was praised for his performance as Aragorn. Even to this day, movie lovers still recognize him for his role in Peter Jackson’s critically acclaimed set of films.

If anything, the nature of Viggo Mortensen and Stuart Townsend’s situation is only further proof of the rough and unpredictable nature of the film industry. Even when something seems set, plans can change at the drop of a dime.

Keep it here at CinemaBlend for more news from the world of film and TV.

In the earlier history of the James Bond franchise, the position of who directed the films seemed to circulate through the hands of four individuals alone. With the exception of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service director Peter R. Hunt, directors Terrence Young, Lewis Gilbert, Guy Hamilton and John Glen were the team that shaped 007 history for the first 16 films in the series. But when you include Hunt, all five men were part of the James Bond team in some position or another. Which makes the fact that in the classic history of Bond films, we could have seen a pretty big name break into their ranks, if history had been a bit kinder.

But even in the modern practice of almost a new director every film, with only Martin Campbell and Sam Mendes being the recurring figures in Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig’s tenures, there have been some amazing “what if” scenarios we missed out on. Today, we’re about to dive deep into the ranks of history, and see how eight directors had a brush with the world of Ian Fleming’s secret agent, and how each of them either lost out or passed up the opportunity to command the gun barrel, along with the man who walks across its gaze.

Steven Spielberg, The Spy Who Loved Me/Moonraker

Back when Steven Spielberg was a young, hotshot director making hits like Jaws and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, the world seemed to be his oyster. And yet, even after making two of the biggest films that defined his career and the history of blockbuster filmmaking, James Bond producer Albert R. Broccoli still wouldn’t hire Spielberg as a director in the Roger Moore era of Bond. Calling his shot two different occasions, history could have seen Steven Spielberg directing either The Spy Who Loved Me or Moonraker, based on the timing of when Spielberg personally called Broccoli to offer his services. Funny enough, both times Steven Spielberg tried to get into the 007 series, Jaws would have been there to greet him if it had worked out.

Alfred Hitchcock, Thunderball

Before Dr. No became the first James Bond tale to be adapted into a 007 film, Ian Fleming originally wanted the script that would eventually become Thunderball, entitled Longitude 78 West, to be directed by Alfred Hitchcock. Even more amazing is the fact that Hitchcock himself was a fan of Fleming’s work, thanks to Casino Royale winning him over in book form. Timing scuppered the works, and the world lost out on what’s now considered to be a “lost Hitchcock.” Even stranger, as Hitch’s North by Northwest leading man Cary Grant was also in the mix as one of the first candidates to play James Bond back in the day, we might have seen the two reunite on the film that eventually became one of the biggest legal headaches in Bond history.

John Landis, Bond 17

The other large legal quagmire that threatened to derail the James Bond series for good was that time that home studio MGM/United Artists was bought by another company, which unlawfully leased the rights to the Bond franchise to another company. Were it not for this hiccup, the film that wasn’t quite Goldeneye, but would have been Bond 17, might not have seen Timothy Dalton fail to renew his contract. And if that film moved ahead, one of the candidates mentioned for the director’s post was National Lampoon’s Animal House/Coming To America helmer John Landis. But with the dissolution of that project, the man who also helped shape the story for The Spy Who Loved Me found his chance at directing this nebulous film fading fast.

John Woo, Goldeneye

It takes a lot of confidence to accept a gig like directing the long awaited return of James Bond, which saw Pierce Brosnan finally getting his turn in the tuxedo in Goldeneye. However, it also takes just as much guts to turn it down with a smile and a polite well wish. That very story showed up in author Christopher Heard’s biography on Face/Off director John Woo, Ten Thousand Bullets: The Cinematic Journey of John Woo. According to that text, Woo was allegedly offered the gig to direct the actual 17th James Bond movie, but he declined with the greatest respect. A year after Goldeneye’s explosive debut, John Woo would break into the consciousness of western audiences with his action thriller Broken Arrow. So you could say it all turned out okay.

Peter Jackson, The World Is Not Enough

Imagine a world where The Lord of the Rings isn’t directed by Peter Jackson. That might have been the case if history shook out differently, particularly in the version of events where Barbara Broccoli pursued Jackson’s directorial skills for 1999’s The World is Not Enough. Apparently, according to the authorized biography Peter Jackson: A Filmmaker’s Journey, Broccoli was at once impressed and repulsed by Jackson’s resume. The story goes something like this: it was the serious and sobering drama Heavenly Creatures that put Peter Jackson on Barbara Broccoli’s radar in the first place. This in turn led her to being invited to view the more comedic horror romp The Frighteners, which promptly put her off his hiring. Which is probably a good thing, as The World is Not Enough released in November 1999, a month into his back-to-back-to-back production schedule on The Lord of the Rings.

Quentin Tarantino, Casino Royale

If the powers that be listened to Pierce Brosnan’s pitch for Casino Royale, things might still be a lot different from what they turned out to be in the world of 007. As Brosnan himself told this story during this year’s Goldeneye watch party, a boozy night out led to the then current James Bond and director Quentin Tarantino, fresh off of Kill Bill at the time, to cook up an R-rated version of Ian Fleming’s first Bond adventure. Apparently there were talks about this film also being a black and white period piece, and that may have been what ultimately pushed those in the decision-making seat to pass. Then again, with Pierce Brosnan being released from the role not too long after that point, other wheels may have been turning.

Roger Mitchell, Quantum of Solace

You probably don’t know director Roger Mitchell by name, but you definitely know one of his most memorable projects as a director: the romantic comedy Notting Hill. Believe it or not, there was a time when Mitchell was approached to get Quantum of Solace off the ground, and in a hurry. With a 2007 release firmly in mind, and no script developed at the time, Roger Mitchell was asked if he could develop some action sequences that Daniel Craig’s second 007 outing could employ to wow the audience. But Mitchell wasn’t comfortable without a script and bowed out as he felt the gig just wasn’t for him. Eventually, World War Z director Marc Forster would take over the reins and deliver the finished project.

Danny Boyle, No Time To Die

And here we are: the most recent and arguably most painful 007 parting of the ways we’ve seen in the current age. When you hire someone like Danny Boyle to make a movie, you kind of expect the man who shepherded Trainspotting, A Life Less Ordinary and 28 Days Later to do something at list a little bit unconventional. Yet when he and writer John Hodge were hired to craft the movie that was eventually No Time To Die, it felt like maybe the series was ready for that sort of approach. Five months after their hiring, and a ton of speculation later, Boyle left the then titled Bond 25, and it was supposedly over a bunch of “crazy, madcap ideas.”

One can only imagine how different the history of James Bond would have been if any of these directors had landed their moments in the 00-sun. These are some experimental ideas and wild chances that might have paid off... or failed spectacularly. It's something to keep in mind as we make our way into the next phase of the Bond franchise, as any new hirings on the directing front could see a quick and sharp reversal of fortune. No Time To Die closes out the Daniel Craig era of films, with its planned release in theaters on November 20, and we can't wait to see how Cary Joji Fukunaga earns his place in the ranks of those who were lucky enough to walk away with the job in hand.

This poll is no longer available.

Hollywood is loaded with iconic directors who have given audiences some of the best entertainment for decades. For that reason, they're often given more work, which always opens them up to giving audiences more to love... or something they may really, really hate. Most of these icons hit far more often than they miss, though even the greatest have that movie where they struck out.

To be completely upfront, there will be some hot takes on this list. Every item on this list is the lowest-rated movie from the mentioned iconic director on Rotten Tomatoes, so blame the critics of the time, not me. With that out of the way, let's run down the list of terrible movies from iconic directors that may or may not deserve a spotlight.

Guillermo Del Toro - Blade 2

Ironically, what many would consider the best Blade movie is also the worst movie made by Guillermo del Toro. Not that Del Toro is ever really given a ton of blame for that; his job was to direct, and he did his best with the script he was given. Unfortunately, even the most foreboding and dark areas fall flat when the movie uses fight scenes with dialogue only to move Blade along to the next fight scene. Thankfully, del Toro would win critics over in the superhero genre with his two Hellboy movies down the road.

David Lynch - Dune

David Lynch had a tremendous task cut out for him in Dune, and by most metrics to this day, he failed. The man who perfectly captured the life of The Elephant Man somehow couldn't find a proper way to adapt Frank Herbert's classic in a way that could be easily understood by its audience. The movie is widely considered a miss for Lynch, and while he's come close with a couple of features, it's the only movie of his considered "rotten" by critics on Rotten Tomatoes.

George Lucas- Star Wars: The Phantom Menace

George Lucas' track record is somewhat skewed considering 2/3rds of his directing work is for Star Wars projects, but he did create the franchise after all. Unfortunately, he also gifted the world the most critically panned entry in the franchise, The Phantom Menace. I thought it was fine in my younger years, but a recent re-watch made me question why plans for the trilogy weren't heavily reconsidered after that entry alone. Was the world just so desperate for more Star Wars that they looked past it? Obviously, there were people who knew right out the gate, as many critics were not shy to say this wasn't nearly on the same level as A New Hope.

Martin Scorsese- Boxcar Bertha

When it comes to violent movies that revolve around a world of crime, typically Martin Scorsese is the guy to call. That said, that wasn't known back when he made Boxcar Bertha, which was only his second directorial feature at the time. Hilariously enough, most of the complaints were due to the violence, which was often a criticism Scorsese has gotten for successive films that are now considered masterpieces. Unfortunately, Boxcar Bertha has not been nearly as acclaimed as the rest.

Tim Burton- Dark Shadows

Tim Burton has a knack for putting his own spin on classic stories, even with works that may not initially seem like they could work with his dark charm. Weirdly enough, Dark Shadows seemed like a perfect and relatively sensible fit for Burton, and he had Johnny Depp on board. It should've been a hit, but critics found the premise played out. The jokes fell flat and Burton was criticized for struggling to find a tone throughout the movie. Sometimes the "sure things" in Hollywood just don't work out in execution, and this movie is proof positive of that.

Peter Jackson - The Lovely Bones

Peter Jackson is known for a lot of things, but paranormal thrillers aren't really his bag. Sure, Frodo did turn invisible a handful of times in The Lord Of The Rings, but even in the context of all he'd done before this movie, The Lovely Bones was a pretty out-there film for Jackson. Of course, that was part of the point, as Jackson went on the record saying he enjoyed doing something that wasn't a large-scale epic for once. Three years later he was doing The Hobbit, though it's worth noting he wasn't the first choice.

Steven Spielberg - Hook

Hook is a beloved classic by many, but that was not how it was received by critics. This movie got a thorough thrashing for being an ill-begotten story of Peter Pan and was hated by critics so much that its aggregate Rotten Tomatoes score is a measly 28%. The movie was called unimaginative, the effects were not well integrated, and the overall story was garbled down by too many Hollywood ideals. Perhaps the biggest criticism was that it had such a great premise, but did so little to further adapt or bring in elements from the original story.

Ridley Scott - A Good Year

Similar to what I touched on earlier with Peter Jackson, there are things iconic directors are known for, and things they aren't. When you think of Ridley Scott, I highly doubt you think of romantic comedies. Scott has a wide range of movies he can make a hit, and with Russell Crowe as the lead in A Good Year, it stood to reason he could do it again. This time it just didn't happen, as the end result was seen as a soulless romantic comedy that went on a little too long. It's not necessarily bad, but certainly not one anyone needs to make time for.

David Fincher - Alien 3

The final entry is the most perhaps fitting, because not even David Fincher will defend Alien 3. The third installment in the Alien franchise already had a lot to live up to with the first two movies, which was directed by two other directing icons, Ridley Scott and James Cameron. Unfortunately, Fincher's film wasn't considered nearly as exciting or bold as the prior two films, though it has gathered its share of fans over the years. Still, when even Fincher himself disowns it, it's hard not to side with the crowd who thinks this sequel just wasn't up to par.

Spike Lee - She Hate Me

She Hate Me has all the ingredients for a great film. It's a challenging script from Spike Lee and Michael Genet, it has a dynamite cast that includes Anthony Mackie, in one of his earliest roles, and Kerry Washington in the lead roles, and, of course, is directed by Lee, one of the most acclaimed directors of the last 30+ years. The movie misses though, weighted down by the heavy message it tries to make while also trying to be a comedy. 

Barry Levinson - Sphere

After the huge success of Jurassic Park in 1993, Hollywood was clamoring to adapt other Michael Crichton novels. The mid and late '90s were chock full of adaptions like The 13th Warrior, Congo, Rising Sun, and Disclosure. Right in that mix was Barry Levinson's adaptation of Sphere and while the book was fantastic, the movie just falls flat, perhaps because people staring at mysterious orb for most of a movie isn't all that exciting. 

Sam Raimi - For Love Of The Game

Director Sam Raimi has a remarkable hit record, with only a couple movies rating below 50% on Rotten Tomatoes, the lowest being the Kevin Costner baseball movie For Love Of The Game. If you love Costner and baseball, it's actually a decent movie, but it isn't Raimi's best, that's for sure. 

Francis Ford Coppola - Jack

Francis Ford Coppola had a run in the 1970s that is almost unprecedented in Hollywood with The Godfather movies, The Conversation, and Apocalypse Now. He found success in the 1980s too, with movies like The Outsiders and Tucker: A Man and His Dream. Then there is 1996's Jack. All you can ask is, "What were Coppola and Robin Williams thinking?"

Penny Marshall - Renaissance Man

The late Penny Marshall is a Hollywood icon for many reasons. Renaissance Man is not one of them. If you've never seen it (which wouldn't be surprising) think of it like Dead Poet's Society crossed with Pauly Shore's In The Army Now, and just as unfunny as the latter. Danny DeVito plays a guy who loves quoting Shakespeare and finds himself teaching army recruits how to read. That's all you need to know, really, there is no reason to ever watch it. 

Oliver Stone - Alexander

Oliver Stone knows how to tell a war story. His Vietnam films Platoon and Born on the Fourth of July rank among the best war movies of all time. His telling of the ancient battle of Alexander the Great in Alexander is as good. The original release was a hot mess and while he has improved it with a couple of subsequent director's cuts, it still doesn't hold a candle to his other films. 

Ivan Reitman - Father's Day

The late Ivan Reitman has always been hit-or-miss with critics. Even some of his most popular movies, like Twins, were poorly reviewed. His worst movie though, based on both audience and critics' scores. is Father's Day starring Billy Crystal and Robin Williams as two men trying to find their former lovers' son to determine which man is the father. It's... not funny, nor is it heartfelt. It's just a miss. 

Amy Heckerling - Night At The Roxbury

Clueless and Fast Times At Ridgemont High are two of the most beloved teen comedies of all time, both define two generations. For director Amy Heckerling they are high water marks in her career. On the other side of those is Night At The Roxbury. Though it’s her lowest-ranked movie on Rotten Tomatoes, it’s not the worst movie based on SNL characters, so it could be worse. 

Kathryn Bigelow - The Weight of Water

Oscar-winner Katheryn Bigelow is pretty picky about the movies she chooses to direct, and most of the time, she nails it, like The Hurt Locker, Point Break, and Zero Dark Thirty. Occasionally she misses, like The Weight Of Water. Though it’s nowhere near the worst movie on this list, it’s still the worst of her movies according to the critics on Rotten Tomatoes. 

The Coen Brothers - The Ladykillers

When your worst-reviewed movie on Rotten Tomatoes is still 54%, you’re doing pretty well. For the Coen Brothers, The Ladykillers is a very rare example of a miss, as they have 13 movies north of 80%. I’m a fan of The Ladykillers and I think it’s vastly underrated, but sticking with the rules, it’s the one of this list. I’d have Hail! Caesar at the bottom, however. 

Danny Boyle - The Beach

Before Alex Garland became an acclaimed director of movies like 2024’s Civil War, he was a novelist. He wrote The Beach in the ‘90s and captivated a generation of would-be adventure travelers. Combine that with the talents of the great director Danny Boyle and star Leonardo DiCaprio and you’d think there was no way the movie would be bad. The Beach isn’t terrible, but it’s not Boyle’s best work by far. It just misses the sense of adventure the novel has. 

Alfonso Cuarón - Great Expectations

Alfonso Cuarón takes his time when making a movie, and while Great Expectations is no exception, it falls short of the lofty expectations we have of the director. Sure, it’s based on a classic novel (though a modern retelling of the Dickens book) and it has a great cast, but it just misses. It’s certainly not up to his usual standards. 

Alex & Emma - Rob Reiner

Some of the best rom-coms of all time have been directed by Rob Reiner. Alex & Emma, starring Luke Wilson and Kate Hudson is not one of them. It’s a rare miss from the This is Spinal Tap director, with a brutal 11% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. 

M. Night Shyamalan - The Last Airbender

M. Night Shyamalan has never really been a critical darling, but his fans always stick up for him, with one exception: The Last Airbender. The movie, based on the Avatar: The Last Airbender franchise, is despised by critics and fans alike, especially fans of the source material. 

Eagle Vs. Shark - Taika Waititi

As debut movies go, Taika Waititi’s Eagle Vs. Shark isn’t that bad. The director’s now-legendary humor is very evident, but it’s clearly a low-budget first outing for Waititi. It’s excusable, given what would come later. What is less excusable is the miss he had with Thor: Love & Thunder, but it’s still better ranked than this one, for some reason. If given the choice between the two, pick Eagle Vs. Shark.

James Cameron - Piranha II: The Spawning

Okay, so this one really isn’t fair. The worst movie that the great James Cameron directed is a B-movie called Piranha II: The Spawning. From the title alone, you know it’s going to be bad. There isn’t much redeemable about it, except that it got Cameron’s foot in the door in Hollywood and his next movie, The Terminator has a perfect 100% on Rotten Tomatoes, so you can ignore the 5% this one got. 

Ron Howard - Inferno

Did you know that Ron Howard and Tom Hanks teamed up for three movies based on the books of Dan Brown? You probably remember The Da Vinci Code and you might have even seen Angels & Demons but there is a third, terrible installment in the franchise called Inferno. CinemaBlend called Howard’s direction “slow, ponderous and dull,” which is not what you explicit from the Hollywood legend. 

Robert Altman - Beyond Therapy

Throughout his career, director Robert Altman had some serious highs, like The Player and MASH, but he also had some pretty low lows, and none were lower than Beyond Therapy in 1987. It came at a low point overall in the legendary director’s career, a time that also included similarly poorly reviewed movies like Popeye and O.C. and Stiggs.

Ivan Reitman - Beverly Hills Cop III

This one is a little unfair, because Ivan Reitman and Eddie Murphy have both made worse movies, but it likely suffers from coming on the heals of two previous Beverly Hills Cop movies that are, without a doubt, superior to this sequel. 

Elia Kazan - The Arrangement

There is no doubt of Elia Kazan’s place in Hollywood history. Considered one of the most influential directors of all time, fans of his can also boast that his movies launched the careers of actors like Marlon Brando and James Dean. However, not every movie he made was a classic and while The Arrangement has been somewhat re-evaluated in recent years, it still holds a dismal 15% ranking on Rotten Tomatoes. 

Brian De Palma - The Bonfire Of The Vanities

Tom Wolfe has only had a couple of books adapted into movies. The first, The Right Stuff is one of the best movies about The Cold War. The second, The Bonfire of the Vanities, directed by Brian De Palma, is… not very good. In fact, it’s pretty brutal. It tries hard to hit all the cultural critiques that Wolfe laid out in his novel, but it just doesn’t get the point across nearly as well. It’s a clunky mess. 

Richard Linklater - Bad News Bears

When he sticks with his own original stories and writes his own screenplays, Richard Linklater is a master. Movies like Dazed and Confused, Before Sunrise, and Boyhood are iconic. The Bad News Bears is also iconic, just not the remake Linklater directed in 2005. The original is far, far better. 

Gus Van Sant - Even Cowgirls Get The Blues

For Gen X, the combination of Gus Van Sant and novelist Tom Robbins was an enticing prospect. Sadly, the movie adaptation of Robbins’ classic Even Cowgirls Get The Blues is simply a disappointment, a very rare miss for Van Sant, especially at that point in his career coming off the back-to-back masterpieces Drugstore Cowboy and My Own Private Idaho. 

Ian Holm passed away on June 19, 2020 at the age of 88. A true legend of the stage and screen, many knew him best from his work in films like Alien and Ratatouille. But he is perhaps best known for his performance as Bilbo Baggins in Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings series. It should come as no surprise that the director took a moment to reflect on his time with the actor, and his heartfelt tribute is a must-read.

Peter Jackson shared a long letter with his Facebook followers that details his memories of working with Ian Holm. Within the post, he shared several behind-the-scenes photos of their days on the Lord of the Rings set, which added an extra personal touch to the memorial. He began by offering his abiding memory of the beloved actor:

He then shared that although he was initially nervous about directing such a prolific artist, Ian Holm was a joy to work with, not only because his performance was so good but because he was up front about how he liked to work:

Peter Jackson shared several stories about their time on the Lord of the Rings set, including a sweet anecdote about a challenging day on set. While they were filming the party scene in The Fellowship of the Ring, the director called on Ian Holm to help corral the child actors that Bilbo reads to. That meant he had to constantly change how he was reading the story to keep their reactions fresh. It also meant he had to do some behind-the-scenes work:

The Lord of the Rings director also did not hold back in praising Ian Holm for being willing to reprise his performance as Bilbo in The Hobbit series. He shared the lengths they went to so they could record his performance - moving the set from New Zealand to London to accommodate the actor’s needs. It turned out to be his last on-screen role:

Peter Jackson ended his letter with an emotional reflection on how much Ian Holm, and his portrayal of Bilbo, meant to him, personally:

Ian Holm is survived by his wife, Sophie de Stempel and his children. He will be missed by fans all around the world.

At this point in time, Andy Serkis’ name is often identified with the words motion capture. He’s the motion capture king, thanks to having really helped to mainstream the technology through the role of Gollum during the Lord of the Rings years. He’s done quite a few motion capture performances since, but now he says he was actually advised against trying out the technology initially thanks to someone he was working with.

In a recent reunion Josh Gad put together for The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring cast as part of his “Reunited Apart” series, Andy Serkis spoke with Gad and fellow cast members such as Sean Astin, Viggo Mortensen, Orlando Bloom, Elijah Wood, Ian McKellan, Dominic Monaghan, Billy Boyd and part of the behind-the-scenes team, including director Peter Jackson himself. When asked how he became involved with Gollum, he revealed he was interested in the part and in filming in New Zealand, but a co-worker was adamant it was going to be a terrible idea.

At the time, obviously motion capture was a new technology and it was also not frequently equated with the name Andy Serkis yet. Special effects at that time were also not always that great when this sort of technology was being used, which is one of the reasons it’s amazing how well the three LOTR trilogy movies still hold up today. I guess what I’m saying is, I don’t totally blame this unnamed actor for trying to warn Serkis off.

Yet, thank goodness he didn’t listen. Basically Andy Serkis went on to really be a leading pioneer in the motion capture work on film. After The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King he went on to play Caesar in the Planet of the Apes franchise movies, also tackling that role for multiple movies. He’s made a name in the industry for this sort of work.

Meanwhile, motion capture was really touch and go when Peter Jackson was trying to get The Fellowship of the Ring budgeted by the studio. Andy Serkis also told Josh Gad, Jackson and co. that the director did basically tell him he had no idea if they were going to be able to pull Gollum off, but he felt they had to try.

Peter Jackson went on to confirm Andy Serkis' latter comment, noting it was just difficult and that "in our imaginations we didn't understand even with ourselves whether this technology was going to hit." Ultimately, alls well that ends well, or in this case, alls well that ends in "a green onesie" and later donations to charity. If you’d like to see Andy Serkis, Viggo Mortensen and the rest of the cast in action, you can see the aptly named “One Zoom To Rule Them All: Reunited Apart” on Youtube now. The episode Supports No Kid Hungry, so it’s for a good cause.

The Lord of the Ring: The Fellowship of the Ring is almost 20 years old. Despite it's age, it and the other Lord of the Rings movies have been an abundant harvesting ground for memes, including Boromir’s speech at the Council of Elrond. Now, Peter Jackson reveals a funny story behind this meme-able speech.

Lately, Peter Jackson and many other Lord of the Rings stars reunited on Josh Gad’s YouTube Channel to discuss the movie trilogy. During their talk, Peter Jackson highlighted how Sean Bean had almost no time to prepare for his famous speech and the trick he used to pull it off. Here’s what Peter Jackson said:

Clearly, one does not simply memorize a whole speech on short notice. So, Sean Bean did the next best thing and cheated a little, putting the speech on his knee. Props to Sean Bean for making that scene work with so little time and for giving us one of the greatest memes of all time.

While memes are usually meant for laughs, other devoted fans have used the medium to explain entire story theories. For a long time, one Lord of the Rings complaint has been about how they could have just used Gandalf’s eagles to deliver the ring into Mount Doom. Since one cannot simply walk into Mordor, why couldn't they just fly? Or so the reasoning goes. But, one fan counter-memed with a theory that Gandalf initially had this in mind. This is just a taste of the memes we’ve seen.

Lord of the Rings, of course, isn’t the only meme-able movie playground for fans. Star Wars is about equal to the level of devotion fans have given when creating memes. From Admiral Ackbar’s “It’s a Trap!” to the countless Baby Yoda memes, these great memes can’t stop, won’t stop coming. Movies and memes just go together like peanut butter and jelly.

As for Peter Jackson, he has long since moved on to different movie projects. Still, fans are always eager to know if he’ll ever consider returning to The Lord of the Rings world and create more movies. The short answer is that it’s unlikely, but not off the table. There's always a chance he could be involved in some capacity. For instance, Amazon is producing their a Lord of the Rings prequel series and have reached out to Peter Jackson to see if he wants to be involved. Here’s hoping Amazon’s Lord of the Rings prequel can provide even more great meme fodder for fans to create.

Cate Blanchett’s role as Galadriel in The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit could feel to many like legend at this point. Her enchanting, beautiful and sometimes terrifying performance as the elf queen is still awesome to watch.

It wasn’t exactly a secret that both The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit lacked female actors. This especially wasn’t lost on Cate Blanchett, who decided to go to director Peter Jackson and pitch him another role she could take on. Here’s what Blanchett said she pitched while appearing on WTF with Marc Maron:

This is pretty hilarious. It would be amazing if Cate Blanchett had gotten the role as a “hairy wife woman,” as she called it. Alas, the stars did not align and we’ll never know what that would have been like. But hey, we’ll always have Galadriel.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy was a massive undertaking by Peter Jackson, and it was a huge risk that eventually paid off critically, at the box office and even at the Academy Awards. The Return of the King had a historical night at the Oscars, winning in 11 categories, including Best Picture.

Now that The Lord of the Rings movies have passed into legend, Amazon has taken up the banner and announced it's developing a prequel TV series. The company wanted Peter Jackson to help out, but outside of potentially looking at some scripts to give notes, he won't be involved with the project.

Not everyone is on board with Amazon doing this series, of course. The Lord of the Rings actors Orlando Bloom and John Rhys-Davies have some thoughts on Amazon’s latest attempt. Orlando Bloom was amazed that they were even doing it, recalling how he never thought anyone would try. Meanwhile John Rhys-Davies didn’t understand why anyone would need to do it in the first place.

After The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies ended, Cate Blanchett has taken on a number of roles over the years, including the villainous Hela in the Marvel box office hit, Thor: Ragnarok. She’s currently filming Nightmare Alley, directed by Guillermo del Toro.

It’s doubtful Cate Blanchett will return a third time to Middle Earth for Amazon’s prequel TV series. But you never know, perhaps they’ll find a way to give her the bearded dwarf role she wanted so long ago.

Guess what? Amazon Studios is in pre-production for the first season of the Lord of the Rings TV series. Filming is gearing up to start in the coming months. The studio hasn't confirmed much up to this point, so it was a pleasant surprise to see a press release announcing a return to New Zealand for the streaming series.

It was hoped but not confirmed prior to this point that Amazon's Lord of the Rings series would go back to New Zealand, where Peter Jackson famously filmed his Lord of the Rings movies.

So this is coming home. (There and back again!)

The deal for Amazon's Lord of the Rings series is said to include five seasons and a possible spinoff. The story will cover The Second Age of author J.R.R. Tolkien's work, which makes it a prequel before The Third Age covered in Peter Jackson's The Hobbit and LOTR movies.

Amazon boss Jeff Bezos wants his own Game of Thrones, and that's what this Lord of the Rings series is meant to be. He even has a tag-team of shorunners, like GOT, in J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay. Payne and McKay issued a statement on the decision to film in New Zealand:

The show's official Twitter account announced the New Zealand return in its own way:

The Lord of the Rings movies were filmed all over Peter Jackson's native New Zealand. There were more than 150 locations used for the trilogy, in addition to soundstages around his home city of Wellington and Queenstown. No one has announced anything about working with Weta Workshop -- which became world-famous when used to make the LOTR movies -- but I would imagine that's in the cards.

Last we heard, it was up to Peter Jackson to decide what kind of involvement he might want in the series. Since Amazon's deal brought in Warner Bros./New Line, THR reported that the series could theoretically use footage from Jackson's movies.

Basing filming in Auckland keeps a New Zealand connection while maybe establishing a separate space from Peter Jackson's universe in Wellington. Auckland is on the North Island, which is also where The Shire's Hobbiton set was located for the Hobbit and LOTR movies.

What will be the official title of the show? If you read the statement above, the showrunners are careful with the phrasing -- "our series based on stories from J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings" as opposed to "The Lord of the Rings on Prime" as it's called on social media. I'm curious to see what they title the series, how they describe Season 1, and more details about the show in general. A Tolkien expert has told fans a bit, including that he heard the first season would have 20 episodes, but nothing like that has been announced yet by Amazon.

Amazon's Lord of the Rings series has introduced its fellowship of behind-the-scenes talent, including J.A. Bayona as director of the first two episodes, and a Game of Thrones alumnus as a consultant.

So far, we've seen two stars announced for the series, including Will Poulter in what's meant to be a leading role. Who will play Sauron? Better cast that role right since Sauron has a big role in the Second Age.

Are you more excited or more nervous for Amazon's Lord of the Rings series? Here's everything we know so far about the show, which is expected to give us Season 1 in 2021.

First created by author J.R.R. Tolkien in his indelible fantasy series, and later deservedly brought to life in Peter Jackson's gorgeous and sprawling trilogy, The Lord of the Rings has resonated with audiences everywhere, and for a very good reason. The epic, expansive story is a timeless one, offering a hero's journey in a clear, yet compelling, manner that provides great arcs, tremendous set pieces and incredible action beats.

Some of the best moments, though, were often centered on the characters, and how we watched them rise, fall, and ultimately grow, throughout their journeyed plight. In order to stay invested in the story with three prolonged chapters like The Lord of the Rings, you need to value the characters and want to follow there and back again in the midst of peril, personal anguish, selflessness and satisfying growths in the midst of their long and laborious journeys. It is, therefore, a credit to the author, the screenwriters, the director and the talented actors that these various characters have become so compelling and universally beloved throughout their adventures on the page and on the screen.

We'll be seeing more of these well-liked characters soon enough in the heavily-teased new LOTR streaming series, which will premiere on Amazon in the next couple years. Whether it lives up to the films and be worth the reported $1 billion investment from Amazon is totally up for question at this point, and we're both very excited and tremendously nervous to see what will become of this new take on J.R.R. Tolkien's acclaimed fantasy series and its surrounding mythos. For now, though, we're looking back at these famous, endearing characters and picking our personal favorites, while also explaining why we loved them throughout this beloved trilogy.

8. Galadriel (Cate Blanchett)

At once awe-striking and awe-inspiring, Galadriel is a high-standing source of great guidance and wisdom. Through her beauty and her elegance, she provides a captivating and divine sense of power and majesty. She has seen many wondrous things and lived through great triumphs and terrors, and while she looks young and pristine, it's clear that her soul has lived through many lives and years.

Galadriel knows of the utmost serious and grave importance behind what Frodo, Gandalf and all the other noble travelers must do in order to prevail against the outstanding terrors creeping within their wake. Played with sheer, ravenous godliness by a young Cate Blanchett, Galadriel was an early sign of the peerless thespian she would later become.

7. Saruman (Christopher Lee)

Undoubtedly among the most powerful and awesome characters populating The Lord of the Rings trilogy, Saruman is often a character relied upon to provide fear and threat. Still, there's no denying the conviction and persistence through which the late, great Christopher Lee brought such command and resolve into this menacing character.

Filled with vengeance and fury, Saruman allowed Lee to bring the magnetism and presence that served him well throughout his career into this all-important supporting character. It would ultimately serve as one of the actor's most famous and remarked-upon career performances.

6. Gimli (John Rhys-Davies)

Perhaps an unorthodox choice among the Lord of the Rings character ensemble, Gimli is nevertheless easily among the most identifiable and — in my view — lovable beings who graces the screen in Peter Jackson's three blockbusters. Gimli is played wonderfully and vividly by John Rhys-Davies, and the character actor makes what could've easily been an indistinctive supporting character into a vibrant, energetic and highly personable protagonist.

What he lacks in stature, he makes up for it in enthusiasm, integrity, ingenuity and a wealth of humor, and it's hard to think of any characters who brings such great joy from even the hint of their appearance than Gimli. That makes him an easy choice bring up for the best and most lovable of the Lord of the Rings characters.

5. Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood) 

As the central protagonist of this expanded tale, Frodo is the eyes through which viewers are thrown into the magical wonders, terrors and spectacles we see in the land of Middle Earth and Mordor. Played by Elijah Wood, Frodo is guileless and unassuming, but there's a genuine sweetness, commitment and loving kindness and determination that makes him an easy character to root for. He's clearly someone who wants goodness to prevail and prevent the darkness of the world to be unveiled.

Next to his trusted companion Samwise, Frodo might not be the most intriguing, layered or outright compelling character that draws attention in this long journey. But it's clear that Frodo is a very good, loyal hobbit. His fine, noble sense of duty and perseverance keep him humble and willing to cast away the evil which plagues the world. He's a character with whom we can trust that this awesome power is in safe hands.

4. Samwise Gamgee (Sean Astin) 

Among all the pivotal characters in The Lord of the Rings, Samwise the Good is certainly among the ones who have the most loving, gratifying and essential narrative progressions found within the trilogy's outstanding turn-of-events. Played with great humor and heart by Sean Astin, Sam is once seemingly a stubborn and uninspired character who finds himself thrust almost unwilling into this graven and peril-filled adventure. He provides strength and inspiration for Elijah Wood's Frodo, proving his valor and devotion as a loving and lasting character in some of the series' richest and most emotionally-rewarding segments.

Sam is certainly among the characters who feels the most wholly-realized once his journey comes to a close at the end of The Return of the King, and it's clear that these events not only turn him in a moral and noble hobbit, but a great and essential one. To J.R.R. Tolkien, Samwise is the "chief hero" of the story, and the character without whom the quest would not be successful. We fully believe that here.

3. Gollum (Andy Serkis)

Both a technical marvel and a distinctly developed entity, Gollum isn't merely a special effect, but a character filled with tragedy, destruction, and terrifying complexity. Very memorably brought to life by the wonderfully talented Andy Serkis, Gollum is consumed by emotional depth and inner turmoil. Gollum is a literal two-sided character who often battles within himself to determine whether good or evil must win out as he helps to guide Frodo and Sam to their final destination.

Gollum is undoubtedly one of the most (precious) fleshed-out characters in the entire trilogy, providing audiences with a spellbinding display of CGI wizardry and revolutionary character work from one of blockbuster filmmaking's most gifted performers. Through this combination of great visual effects, outstanding acting and dark character pathos, it is easy to see why Gollum is not only among the most memorable and lasting characters in this expansive trilogy, but easily among the absolute finest characters in all of fiction.

2. Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen)

Filled with valor, strength and nobility, Aragorn is a great warrior and leader, and he's a character with whom inspiration and guidance can be found. The son of Arathorn, Aragorn was born from tragedy and destruction, and rises to great heights in the progression of these three films. Viewers watch Aragorn evolve into the character of legend that he was destined to become, and we see the character's resolve and majesty finally come fruition by the end.

Played with great triumph by Viggo Mortensen, Aragorn is a character who is captivating, commanding, compelling and filled with a sense of resolution that feels fitting and formidable as we follow him during these three intertwined films. It's easy to see why he ascends to greatness, and why movie viewers continue rewatching him do just that.

1. Gandalf (Ian McKellen) 

Gandalf is a benevolent elder figure filled with depth, intelligence, insight and personality, and he also happens to tower over other central characters — both literally and figuratively — in their quest to restore prosperity and restore harmony and balance. The literal Christ figure in this Catholicism-drenched mythos, Gandalf dies and returns again in the midst of these three movies. The bearded mystic is a noble and wise character who doesn't so much progress linearly as he ascends throughout the journey, reaching his full wit, heart, depth and presence in the brave, bold transformation the elder wizard-like figure takes throughout this ongoing journey.

Ian McKellen gives an indelible performance throughout the films, completely transforming into the role, and Gandalf is THE character who completely becomes one with his in-print counterpart. McKellen gives an outstanding performance, and the character's wisdom and honor makes him an easy favorite.So much so that it's impossible to imagine anyone else in the role, though Sir Sean Connery was once rumored to be the first choice.

These are just eight of the many great characters in The Lord of the Rings. There are clearly many more worth considering (I can hear the cries of distain at the lack of Legolas inclusion), and there's a great case to be made for all the characters that weren't included in this list. Therefore, we recommend you hit the comment sections with your personal favorites, and why you think they deserve a higher ranking above the ones on this list. And stay tuned for the Lord of the Rings TV series hitting Amazon in the distant future.

One does not simply wait for Amazon's Lord of the Rings series to premiere. It's never too soon to get hyped for Amazon's outrageously expensive LOTR prequel series, based on author J.R.R. Tolkien's work before the events of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. There's a lot of room for interpretation, and currently a lot of room for speculation on what exactly the series will cover. So finish your second breakfast and Strider on over to these morsels, then bookmark this beast for more updates for the adventure ahead. Forth Eorlingas!

The Lord Of The Rings Series Premieres September 2, 2022

Following months of speculation about when viewers would get to go back to Middle Earth, Amazon announced in August 2021 that The Lord of the Rings will make its Prime Video debut on Friday, September 2, 2022. The big reveal was announced just as principal photography wrapped on the show’s first season, which initially kicked off in early 2020 before a predetermined break turned into an extended shutdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Deadline.

The Lord Of The Rings Cast Includes Robert Aramayo, Peter Mullan, Morfydd Clark And More

One does not simply make a Lord of the Rings show without a cast the size of an army, and Amazon Studios has come prepared for the upcoming fantasy series. With several dozen actors spanning multiple generations and nationalities, the Lord of the Rings cast is one filled with both established stars and the up-and-coming talent. Among the massive ensemble cast are Robert Aramayo (Young Ned Stark on Game of Thrones), Peter Mullan (Corban Yaxley in the Harry Potter franchise), and Morfydd Clark (Sister Clara on His Dark Materials), who will be taking on the role of a young Galadriel.

Amazon’s Lord Of The Rings Show Will Be Set In Middle Earth’s Second Age, Thousands Of Years Before The Movies

We won’t be seeing too many characters from Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy besides Galadriel and possibly Elron and Sauron (if the rumors are true) in upcoming Amazon series because it will take place in Middle Earth’s Second Age, thousands of years prior to the events of Frodo Baggins’s journey to destroy the One Ring.

When Amazon first announced the Lord of the Rings TV series, the studio revealed the show will take viewers back to an era in which great powers were forged, kingdoms rose and fell, and J.R.R. Tolkien’s greatest villain threatened to cover the world in darkness:

On this epic journey, viewers will be taken to the depths of the Misty Mountains, the island kingdom of Númenor, and other magical places on the vast Middle Earth map.

Lord Of The Rings Season 1 Will Consist Of Eight Episodes

When Amazon’s Lord of the Rings series arrives on Amazon Prime at some point in the very near future, its first season will consist of eight episodes. Although Amazon Studios has revealed the Season 1 episode count, the length of each of those episodes has not yet been disclosed. If we go by other Amazon original series like The Boys, Good Omens, and The Expanse, we can most likely expect each of those episodes to run anywhere from 50 to 60 minutes. Even with eight hours of Middle Earth adventures, the series still won’t be as long as the Lord of the Rings extended versions put together.

Amazon’s Lord Of The Rings TV Series Is Directed By J.A. Bayona, Wayne Che Yip And Charlotte Brändström

Amazon’s Lord of the Rings Season 1 is directed by a trio of international filmmakers, each with an impressive track record, especially when it comes to the world of fantasy. Spanish filmmaker J.A. Bayona, who directed The Orphanage, The Impossible, and A Monster Calls before taking on Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, directed the first two episodes of Lord of the Rings. British filmmaker Wayne Che Yip, who has long been attached to Doctor Who, is responsible for four episodes in the upcoming Amazon series. Swedish-French director Charlotte Brändström, who has directed episodes of Outlander, Netflix’s The Witcher, and The Outsider, among others, helmed the remaining two chapters of the epic prequel series.

J.D. Payne And Patrick McKay Serve As Co-Showrunners On Lord Of The Rings

Amazon boss Jeff Bezos has not been shy about saying he wants his streaming service to have its own Game of Thrones, and it's clear he's using a similar playbook for Lord of the Rings. Like the HBO fantasy series, Amazon's Middle Earth epic is being run by a team of two, in this case the writing/showrunning team of J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay.

Also, Lord of the Rings nabbed Game of Thrones writer Bryan Cogman as a consultant, after HBO passed on Cogman's Game of Thrones prequel idea. J.A. Bayona also signed on as an executive producer of Amazon's Lord of the Rings series on top of his directing duties. Amazon revealed its full creative team through a full "Fellowship" video in July 2019:

The team Amazon Studios has put in charge of the Lord of the Rings TV series is an impressive lot, one that will certainly make the most of the material, even if Peter Jackson isn’t involved.

Lord Of The Rings Season 1 Has A Massive $465 Million Budget

As the quality and production value of TV shows continues to grow (especially in the age of streaming), it should come as no surprise that some of these shows are crazy expensive to make. Well, you can add Amazon’s Lord of the Rings series to that list as the first season has a staggering $465 million budget, making it one of the most expensive TV shows of all time. During a May 2021 roundtable discussion with The Hollywood Reporter, Amazon Studios head Jennifer Salke attributed the massive figure to a combination of world-building efforts and the state of content-buying in Hollywood:

There Will Be A Lord Of The Rings Season 2 With The Possibility For Even More Middle Earth Action To Follow

We still haven’t seen The Lord of the Rings Season 1, but the series has already been given the go-ahead for a second season. Back in November 2019, Deadline reported that the second chapter of the big-budget fantasy series was already in the works at that time. But there could also be even more adventures set in Middle Earth as part of Amazon’s 2017 deal included a multi-season commitment to a Lord of the Rings series and the possibility of spinoffs. It should be noted that Amazon will have to formally greenlight each of those seasons in the future.

There are still a few other things we don’t yet know about Amazon’s Lord of the Rings series, including official images of the characters, a trailer, and some lingering unanswered questions. While we wait, now’s the perfect time to check out all the new and returning shows on the Fall 2021 TV schedule.

When it was originally announced that James Wan was going to direct the first ever Aquaman movie, it actually made quite a bit of sense. The filmmaker not only had some tremendous success with the making and release of Furious 7 (his debut in the blockbuster realm), but also had established a great working relationship with Warner Bros. (specifically by launching The Conjuring Universe). That in mind, it may surprise you to learn that he apparently wasn't the studio's first choice for the gig, as Peter Jackson was originally pitched on the project... not once, but twice.

This revelation comes from the latest issue of Empire, though exactly how the subject came up in conversation with the filmmaker isn't entirely clear. The director apparently was pitched on the underwater superhero adventure by Former Warner Bros CEO Kevin Tsujihara - with whom he worked on theHobbit trilogy - and an attempt was apparently made twice because the executive seemingly forgot Peter Jackson's response the first time he was asked. Said the director,

One can understand why Kevin Tsujihara was interested in having Peter Jackson make the Aquaman movie, given the fact that the filmmaker both has a lot of experience with giant blockbusters, and because he has a lot of ambition when it comes to the realm of visual and special effects - both of which were definitely needed in the making of the DC Extended Universe title. But apparently it just wasn't a job that appealed to Jackson, to the point where he shut down the opportunity twice.

So why did he turn down the gig? Apparently stories about costumed vigilantes just aren't really his thing - though he obviously doesn't have anything against the comic medium at large. After all, he had a major hand in developing Steven Spielberg's The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn as a producer. That, however, was very much a passion project for the New Zealand-born writer/director, and he simply didn't connect with the material that inspired Aquaman in the same way. He explained,

As a result, things turned out quite well for James Wan, who did connect with the adventures of Arthur Curry and made a movie that reflects that. Aquaman not only ultimately got a warm reception from critics, but now stands as the highest grossing DC Comics adaptation of all time - making more than a billion dollars at the global box office.

So if he's not making superhero movies, what is Peter Jackson doing these days? Right now we can't say with any certainty what his next narrative feature will be, but a lot of his focus and attention as of late has been in the documentary realm. Last year we saw the release of They Shall Not Grow Old, which showcases immaculately restored footage from World War I, and right now he is working on a documentary about one of the greatest and most beloved bands in rock and roll history: The Beatles.

Being big fans of Peter Jackson's work , we here at CinemaBlend will update you with all the latest news about his developing projects - and also deliver the latest about what's happening with Aquaman on the big screen. So stay tuned!

To 3D or Not To 3D is back, and it is an honor to be evaluating the 3D version of director Peter Jackson’s World War I documentary, They Shall Not Grow Old. Pieced together through actual footage shot at least a hundred years ago, with audio archives from soldiers who actually fought the battles themselves, this amazing retrospective gives a vibrant, living face to a conflict consigned to the realm of historical remembrance. But as such, hearing that a 3D conversion was added into the mix had us asking if this was worth the extra effort, or if audiences need not bother.

Which is why we’re here today to ask whether you should see They Shall Not Grow Old in standard 2D, or splash out for a 3D experience. If you’re looking for what we thought about the film itself, head on over to our official review. Otherwise, it’s now time to ask that famous question,”To 3D, or Not To 3D?”

3D Fit Score: 5/5

On the surface, some might question why a historical non-fiction film like They Shall Not Grow Old should be presented in 3D. But seeing the results of Peter Jackson’s restoration of footage from a century ago, it’s not hard to see why this 3D version was put together. Immersing the audience in a full 3D setting helps keep the audience invested in a story that’s more typically seen as further removed from the history of today. It’s a classic case of using modern technology to give the audience a fresh perspective on history.

Planning & Effort Score: 5/5

The limitations of the footage presented in They Shall Not Grow Old feel like more of a by-product that can be attributed to the age and condition of the source material. But the amount of love poured into the preservation and conversion of this footage is shown much clearer in this 3D presentation. While there’s still some aspects that are slightly shy of perfect, namely the Before The Window and Brightness aspects, the entire product shines with maximum effort. This is a well crafted product, with great intent showing in each frame.

Before the Window Score: 4/5

There really aren’t any aspects of They Shall Not Grow Old that come off of the screen in a manner that we’d typically attribute to 3D. That being said, there’s still a consistent amount of visual assets that protrude towards the screen, stopping short of coming off of it. Explosions, firing cannons, and various horse driven vehicles coming towards the camera are good examples of projecting the visual elements towards the audience, but as far as breaking the window that is the screen, it stops just short of doing so.

Beyond the Window Score: 5/5

One of the most impressive features involving They Shall Not Grow Old’s 3D conversion is the fact that the picture depth is used to great effect. Not only are persons and objects separated from their environments, those same environments are pretty deep in their depiction. Even in the bookending segments where the footage is purposely displayed in a more 2D fashion (reminiscent of the 3D conversion of Tron Legacy), there’s a depth added by using an old time film frame that adds layers to the film. Peter Jackson explains as much in the introduction shown with the film, and by time the picture expands and immerses the audience in the action of World War I, the 3D effect brings the film into a living, breathing display of humanity.

Brightness Score: 4/5

The colorization of They Shall Not Grow Old is so beautiful, that when the footage converts into a full theatrical experience it’s breathtaking. That being said, the typical issues with 3D glasses dimming the picture being displayed are still present with this film. Though that could vary depending on your screening of the film, as how a theater maintains their 3D projectors tends to have an effect on how bright a 3D film is shown. Even with that aspect in play, the colors and action are still bright enough to be made out clearly; they’re just slightly dimmed.

Glasses Off Score: 4/5

With a film that shifts between decorative and immersive 3D, there’s certainly a variance to the blur that is involved in They Shall Not Grow Old’s presentation. Through both bookending segments, the blur isn’t all that powerful, with a lighter extent being used to show a flatter picture than what you’ll be seeing during the majority of the film. Once the full 3D picture comes into play, the blur that’s used to display the level of manipulation used on the film increases. Again, there seems to be some limitations imposed by the age of the footage, but overall, the level of blurriness supports the amazing extent to which the picture is projected into 3D greatness.

Audience Health Score: 5/5

There is absolutely no strain or nausea involved with watching They Shall Not Grow Old. In fact, this feels like one of the most impressive / easiest 3D conversions to watch. While it’ll take a little getting used to watching World War I footage in a 3D context, none of the adjustment will be of any physical effect. Your eyes won’t have a problem adjusting to the full 3D presentation of the film, and to a certain extent that’s probably because of the adjustment period that’s granted through the film’s opening bookend, which employs 3D to a lesser extent than the majority of the film.

While certain limitations exist when it comes to converting footage that's almost 100 years old into a 3D presentation, They Shall Not Grow Old is an exemplary example of why such undertakings are worth the effort. The immersive nature of this conversion helps drive home the case for proper usage of 3D in non-tentpole / dramatic non-fiction narratives. This is a fantastic example of using a deliberate, well-planned 3D conversion to draw an audience deeper into the story they’re watching on the screen; something that Peter Jackson always seems to excel at.

This poll is no longer available.

Be sure to visit our full To 3D Or Not To 3D Archive.

What do The Beatles and The Lord of Rings have in common? No, besides the Hobbits and bandmates sharing mop-like hairdos and going through quite the unforgettable journey. Both their stories will be adapted through the eyes of Oscar-winning director Peter Jackson, since his latest project will be on the iconic British band’s Let It Be album era.

With Peter Jackson's latest project, the World War I documentary They Shall Not Grow Old, he’s just announced he’ll next be working on another starring Beatles bandmates John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr in the studio working on their final album Let It Be, circa 1969.

The director has his hands on over 50 hours of unreleased footage and 140 hours of audio of the band’s work on the album, long considered to the most turbulent time in their history, leading to the band's breakup in 1970. Peter Jackson told Entertainment Weekly that the documentary will be a unique experience for fans because it will showcase the band's creative process and put to rest the myths associated with this period for the band.

Past Beatles documentaries have shown Beatles footage during their concerts, movies and interviews, but Peter Jackson describes his project as the ultimate ‘fly on the wall’ experience Beatles fans have long dreamt about, along with describing the footage as “funny, uplifting and surprisingly intimate” amidst some moments of drama between the band.

The exclusive footage was shot in the studio by Michael Lindsay-Hogg 18 months before the band members went their separate ways. It’s been long characterized as a time of argument after argument between them in the midst of recording classics including “Let It Be,” “The Long and Winding Road” and “Get Back.”

The intention behind the album was to perform the song live in the studio and capture the entire band playing at once directly on tape. The album was recorded before their iconic Abbey Road cover hit shelves. Let It Be wasn’t released until a few weeks after The Beatles officially called it quits.

Peter Jackson’s documentary about the legendary British band is currently in production and does not have an official title or release date yet. The director hopes this project will give fans a different perspective of the negative association with the making of “Let It Be” as in Jackson’s words they watch “four friends make music together.”

It’s an exciting project for the Lord of the Rings director to take on and for Beatles fans to anticipate. It also comes right as Queen biopic Bohemian Rhapsody has found incredible success with audiences and during awards season, and with the musical Rocketman, loosely-based on Elton John’s life and music, hitting theaters on May 31.

War documentaries have earned a bit of a reputation as being a genre so rote and voluminous that their arrival isn't heralded as anything terribly special. And yet, much like any type of artistic endeavor, the right approach can lead to a unique view of familiar territory. Not only does director Peter Jackson's World War I documentary They Shall Not Grow Old provide more insight into the often overlooked subject of war on the Western Front, it does so with an artistic panache that immerses the audience in actual footage of British soldiers in the fight.

Upon being commissioned by the Imperial War Museum to create a project honoring the centenary anniversary of World War I, Peter Jackson restored footage shot during the conflict in order to be presented to a modern audience. Through colorization, a 3D conversion, and audio from the veterans that lived through The Great War themselves, They Shall Not Grow Old paints a portrait of how the English met the challenges of the conflict ahead of them. From the outbreak of the war and its ensuing enlistments through to Armistice Day, we're made to experience the total war through the eyes of those on the ground.

If They Shall Not Grow Old is being evaluated as merely an artistic exercise, it passes with flying colors. The level of restoration that Jackson and his team have been able to execute on footage that's at least a century old is astounding, especially in the bookending segments when the film displays civilian life before and after the war. But it's the main event, where the film turns into an immersive 3D experience that not only adds color, but depth, to said restored footage that truly is a sight to see. There's even the effective addition of a soundtrack, as well as sound effects and what could be considered dialogue, as the soldiers speaking in the footage truly come to life with someone giving them a voice.

However, it's the historical merits that truly push They Shall Not Grow Old into must-see status, as the fact that Peter Jackson was able to put together a cohesive narrative with predominantly film and audio archives is astounding. You're hearing the men who lived through World War I talking about the experiences they had first hand, while watching actual footage and images captured during World War I. Rather than just present this archival material in a stodgy, traditional fashion, Jackson uses his resources to tremendous effort and makes a story that grips the viewer. Both the atrocities and the camaraderie of World War I are on display in full effect, and both are combined in such a way that you really feel both throughout the film.

They Shall Not Grow Old is truly a passion project for Jackson, as he dedicates the film to his grandfather and two other New Zealanders who served in World War I. So it's positively gratifying to see the director's interest in the story translate to the loving care that was visited on not only the film, which was upconverted to 2K picture quality, but also the scope of the subject that's covered. Though, in his introduction to the film, Peter Jackson admits that the film is a bit narrow focused, as it was a project that stays solely in the trenches of the Western Front. But seeing what he did with just one facet of this multi-tiered conflict, it would be a welcome prospect to see him visit other fronts of the war, such as the naval theater of battle or the efforts of those in the air.

They Shall Not Grow Old tells the story of a nation ready to fight for what they believed in, and the cost it paid to get out alive and victorious. It is required viewing for history buffs, military aficionados, and everyone in-between. Most importantly, it's a portrait of the humanity that underlies this and all great conflicts, a subject that can always use more attention when discussing the concept of warfare. Because if we forget who we were before we fought, and the reasons why we fought, the conflict will never end. If you enjoy a war documentary that shows its subject with a living, breathing pulse, They Shall Not Grow Old is absolutely required viewing.

Readers, start your Mortal Engines! It's time to revisit one of this month's would-be blockbusters, and the film most likely to draw in folks that can't make it to Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse. Another YA franchise looks to make itself into a fixture at the movies, and it's bringing along an old friend for the ride as well. We're not talking about multiple entries ready to be adapted, should the green light be issued. No, we're talking about the 3D conversion!

But is Mortal Engines worth the 3D ticket money, or are you better off donating the extra Quirks to the St. Paul's Energy Project? That's what we're here to determine today, as To 3D or Not To 3D braves the wastes of the Earth and helps you make the right decision. If you're interested in what we thought of the movie, head on over to the official review. Otherwise, it's time to get busy with running through if Mortal Engines makes the 3D grade!

If you don't think motorized cities with the ability to wage war aren't a 3D fit, you're probably not that big of a fan of the format. Mortal Engines has landscapes, locations, and events that are so built for 3D, it would be a disappointment if they weren't offered in such a manner. Not to mention, it's a big spectacle that's meant to help close 2018's box office season in grand fashion, so the extra splash is absolutely warranted.

Only some minor hiccups stop Mortal Engines from being a perfect 3D conversion, but other than that, this is a pretty well planned and executed 3D film. Brightness is where the film really takes its lumps, but other than that, there's some well thought out action in the film's third dimensional enhancements. The practice of 3D conversion started out as taking some serious guff from purists, but a film like Mortal Engines shows just how far it's come after all of these years.

You might not believe it, but it's extremely hard to get a 3D conversion that knows how to properly throw things out at its audience. But considering how much of a technical fanatic producer / writer Peter Jackson is, it's no surprise that Mortal Engines gets this factor absolutely right. It only takes a handful of minutes into the film before you know its serious about the 3D, with massive, flinching objects pushing their way out of the screen. Now take that sensibility, and expand it throughout a film where guns are pointed at faces, cannons fire causing debris to explode, and various chase scenes fly past your face, and you've got a good time.

Complementing the stellar work that the team behind Mortal Engines' 3D conversion did on the "Before The Window" factor is the absolutely gorgeous depth brought to the film's picture. The usual hallmarks are airtight, with characters well separated from their environments, as well as their co-stars. But on top of the spatial reasoning being solid, the depth factor is truly endless, making some scenes even more breathtaking in 3D than in 2D. One scene in Mortal Engines' third act even uses this effect to introduce a new setting in a most fantastic manner.

Hello darkness, our old friend. The brightness factor on Mortal Engines loses a point for the same old problem, no matter where you go. When you put on those grey/black glasses, the picture naturally dims a little bit. In the case of Mortal Engines, it mutes the mostly warmer color palette that the film snuggly find itself colored by. Your mileage may vary in terms of brightness, seeing as it also depends on how well your theater calibrates and maintains its 3D auditoriums. But as it stands, for the presentation we saw, the picture was only slightly dimmer than it was with the glasses off.

Since we've already got our glasses off, let's talk about the blur you might be seeing on the screen. You're going to want to lift your glasses up during Mortal Engines, not only to give your eyes a small break, but also to see what's going on without the aid of polarized lenses. That blur is totally natural, in fact, it's an indicator of how much the image on the screen has been manipulated to present a 3D image. The majority of the film is pretty blurry, with both background and foreground shots getting in on the action. But there are some instances where the picture isn't as blurred as others, giving almost a 2D look to certain aspects of the picture. Thankfully, those moments are few and far between.

Your eyes are important, and if the presentation isn't just right on a 3D movie, you might find them strained during the presentation of a film like Mortal Engines. But much like the majority of the factors covered in our To 3D guide, there's a lot of praise to be had in the audience health factor. The entire product is a smooth experience, with no eye strain or nausea to be had, and that's no small feat with the fast paced action presented on the screen. You're not going to need a steel stomach to watch Mortal Engines in 3D.

Mortal Engines is not only a 3D film well worth the audience's time, it's a film that begs to be seen in IMAX 3D, or any large format offering the same treatment. Its immersive storytelling is severely engaging in 2D, but becomes absolutely electric in the 3D presentation. While the brightness fudges things up a little, it doesn't sink the ship entirely. If you're only going to see it once, see it right and take the 3D journey to futuristic London!

This poll is no longer available.

Be sure to visit our full To 3D Or Not To 3D Archive.