Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

The Six Worst Movies of All Time*

I’ve just read this and it reminded me of something. Way back when I posted a list of the most annoying movies. By annoying I meant films that had good features but were fatally flawed. “The Thin Red Line” I think I singled-out for particular opprobrium. But I never quite got round to the real stinkers with no redeeming features.

Here goes. There will be spoilers but really don’t ever watch any of these.

6. “That Thing you Do”. Now this almost (perhaps it did) make it onto the “annoying list”. It’s a well-crafted movie (director Tom Hanks) and a beautifully shot period piece about America in the late ’50s and some kids starting a band but it is a movie almost devoid of any real plot or real dramatic tension. The band has a hit (it’s also the movie title) and they then break-up and that is it. I think one of them has a bit of a scare because his girlfriend thinks she’s pregnant. I’m not sure about that. I’m just filling in the blanks with a standard plot-device from all teen-movies because that was what this film was. Imagine something a bit like “Porkies” but with no laughs and incredibly clean-cut teen characters and you’re almost there. I suspect Hanks fell in love too strongly with his creation to put it through the ringer hence the complete lack of any drama. It was his directorial debut and a “very personal project”. I saw it on a ‘plane.

5. “Jack”. Arguably Francis Ford Coppola’s nadir. Coppola now spends much of his time making wine. I hope his wines age better than Robin Williams. Now Robin Williams is cinematic poison at the best of times but in this he’s Sarin. He is a boy trapped in a rapidly ageing body. So by the time he’s graduating high-school he looks about 75. Of course there is a demented attempt to make this a “feel good spectacle” showing how Jack’s classmates are originally not-sure about this weirdo but then inevitably pal-up with him. I seem to recall the breakthrough (and possibly follow-through) momnent there – the living, beating heart of the movie – is a farting competition in a tree-house that Jack’s middle-aged bowels easily win against his teen competitors. That is how bad it is. Robin Williams farting in a tree-house. It doesn’t get much worse than that. I also saw this on a plane.

4. “Batman and Robin”. Well Joel Schumacher really pissed a presumably enormous sum of monies up the wall on that one! It has no redeeming features. You might have expected more from the maker of “The Lost Boys” but nope. It is dreadful. George Clooney looks bored and Uma Thurman looks frumpy and the whole thing has the air of a gay pride parade gatecrashing a clown convention, badly.

3. “Twin Town”. This was made in ’97 and was like any number of a crop of dreadful movies made in the UK around that time purely because the government was offering tax-breaks so generous that absolutely anything dreadful was being put on celluloid. I’m actually quite glad I saw it in a way because it crystallized something in my mind about story-telling. “Twin Town” sort of tries to be a Welsh “Trainspotting” but fails utterly because it is impossible to have any sympathy whatsoever with any character. The two leads (the eponymous twins) are utter moral vacuums and total scumbags. It’s basically a revenge story which involves inter alia the beheading of a pet dog in what could arguably be said to be a homage to The “Godfather” movies. Even more arguably it could be seen as taking the piss and morally vile – this is the action of the alleged heroes of the piece afterall. Actually talking of the “Godfather” reminds me of my central point here. Sort of. It reminds me of “Apocalypse Now” and calling in a massive napalm strike on all of them.

2. “The Two Towers”. Aragorn gets knocked off his horse and wanders around dazed and confused. I’ve got to hand it to Peter Jackson because that is a striking metaphor for this movie. It is by far the weakest of the three despite being based on the strongest book in the trilogy (my opinion). I await “The Hobbit” (in two parts!) with trepidation. Oh, I’m being unfair perhaps because it really ought to be on the “annoying” rather than “utter stinker” list but Hell’s teeth Jackson you got a literary classic here – don’t “re-imagine it”. Just tell it straight and lose the skate-boarding elves. And Bernard Hill’s soliloquy before leading the charge out of Helm’s Deep does go on.

1. “Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein”. Yes, a second entry for Francis Ford Coppola. I saw this at the cinema with my brother. The roughly 15-20 minute journey home by car involved the two of us leaving that utter shit-festival with nowt but it’s eyes to weep with. Where do I start? The title. It absolutely wasn’t Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. It totally missed her key points. Now I mentioned the “Two Towers” monkeying with Toller’s plot but this eviscerated the entire spirit of the thing. Robert De Niro as the monster was abysmal. Ken Branagh clearly had no idea what he was doing and the crowning moment of dreadfulness was the bizarre inclusion of John Cleese as the Professor Branagh’s Victor Frankenstein steals the idea from. This utterly violates the conception of the novel and the fundamental point about a genius so wrapped-up in his work he forgets morality. It has to be Frankenstein’s baby and not something he just rips off from Basil Fawlty.

That is the entire point. That is why Mary Shelley’s myth has it’s power to this day. This was a movie adaption which utterly missed what the first great myth of the scientific era was saying. As I said about Tolkien, if you are making a movie based on a literary classic then don’t monkey with it because the story is just there already and if you really think you can do better then write your own! If a story is good (and Frankenstein is) there is a reason it lasts. I might just give it a bye but not very long before this monster lumbered onto our screens there was a TV-movie version (directed by David Wickes and starring Patrick Bergin as Victor Frankenstein) which was very faithful to the original. That aired a mere 18 months before Coppola’s train-wreck. Hell, it even had Sir John Mills as the blind wood-cutter (and not Richard Briers who has scenes with De Niro that are utter excruciation). It is mere hubris that hates HBO (I think it was them). I really got into them with Brian Cox (the real Hannibal Lecter – not the Manc physicist) playing Hermann Göring in “Nuremberg”. That was good but then he’s a damn fine actor who could do charm and evil equally brilliantly.

A Baldwin (I forget which – there are a number) who played a US chief prosecutor did it for me. He defined evil as “a complete lack of empathy”. Now I don’t entirely buy that but it’s not a bad go at an exceptionally difficult question. I guess I’m trying to say that whilst the Frankenstein movie had nothing to say the HBO one made a good and brave attempt at saying something (basically what Mary Shelley was saying) at least.

*That I have seen entire.


  1. Roue le Jour says:

    Batman and Robin has Alicia Silverstone in a rubber suit, that’s all I’m saying.

    On Frankenstein, right at the beginning people start running and the camera starts zooming about, both clear signposts of a bad movie. We’re running because we can’t create any drama with the script, we’re waggling the camera so you don’t notice we can’t compose an interesting shot. Perhaps the score will carry it? Good movies do not do this.

    I read Frankenstein as being about the responsibility of creation. It makes a nice trinity with Dracula, which is about sex, and the Mummy, which is about death. OK, nowadays it’s genetic engineering, sparkly boys and zombies, but it’s still the big three.

    Cox is one of the good guys for sure, but Hollywood doesn’t use him well. I cringed when they had him say “You’ve no idea what you’re dealing with.” In the Bourne thingie. I think there’s a version of Word for script writers that does that when you press F2. (F1 is of course “Never before in the history of motion pictures…) 😉

  2. You could save time by just listing anything part-funded by the British Film Council (or the foreign equivalents).

    I quite liked “That thing you do’ although now you mention it, it didn’t have much of a plot, I’m not sure that’s relevant, I’d happily watch it again.

  3. NickM says:

    “I read Frankenstein as being about the responsibility of creation.”

    Well, that was my take too. Alas FFC and Ken didn’t agree with you me, Mary Shelley, or the rest of the English speaking world. Oh, and you’re a bloody hilarity Roue! I shall remember that comment for some time. My Bourne thingie moment was realising that the lass was Franka Potente from the vastly more watchable “Run Lola Run”. And you’re right on Brian Cox too.

  4. Kevin B says:

    I actually haven’t watched any of these films, not even the Rings stuff. “Then why are you commenting” I hear you ask. Well, these may be the worst films of Nick M’s time but the reason I didn’t watch them was the worst films of Kevin B’s time.

    A small sample:

    The Knack,
    The Family Way,
    Georgy Girl,
    Kes!!!! Fucking Kes!!!
    Performance (starring Mick Fucking Jagger).

    And these wern’t the deliberate crap like Carry On up the Khyber or the sit-com spin-offs like On the Buses goes Nascar or Terry and June do Dallas. These were the cream of award winning British Fillums. All the great names of British cinema are there. John Mills, Haley Mills, Mrs Mills, all the various evil Redgrave’s, Michael Crawford, Colin Welland, Brian Glover, Michael Caine, Ken Loach. Yes boys and girls, Ken fucking Loach.

    Is it any wonder I have never been into a cinema since the first Alien movie opened in Leicester square and the only movie I watch on telly is Independence Day

  5. Sam Duncan says:

    “Batman and Robin has Alicia Silverstone in a rubber suit, that’s all I’m saying.”

    And it’s still unwatchable. That’s how bad it is. Anyway, Batman Returns had Michelle Pfeiffer in a leather catsuit. And The Dark Knight didn’t have any hotties in tight suits at all, and it’s the best of the lot. That’s all I’m saying.

  6. Single Acts of Tyranny says:

    Robin Williams ~ What dreams may come. Now in all fairness, I’ve never managed to sit through it, but the end would need to be phenomenal to redeem it.

  7. NickM says:

    The ending is remarkable but not in the way you might hope. It is remarkably shite. It makes “Joe vs the volcano” look like “Battleship Potempkin”.

    Up the Khyber is cinematic genius. Kes, I’ll give you is complete wankensteins. And yes, anything involving Ken fucking Loach.

    Yeah and what Sam said. That Catwoman movie with Halle Berry. Dear sweet Marty of McFly was that not soul-rending?

  8. Bod says:

    Oh, I have a few, they’re unlikely to intersect with many of the other submissions, ‘cos I’m a bit of a culture snob, I am, and I don’t do action pictures much.

    + Mosquito Coast
    + Sideways. fucking Sideways!
    + EVERY Roger Moore James Bond movie (does that count as one?)
    + Mel Gibson’s Hamlet
    + Kevin Costner’s “Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves” – not even redeemed by Alan Rickman’s memorable “You, my room, 10 o’clock, and bring a friend”. I guess he could have made sure they were on time with his authentic first-edition Rolex Oyster.
    + The remake of “The Hitcher”
    + Starship Troopers

    I know. It was more than 7; so sue me.

  9. JuliaM says:

    ‘Johnny Mnemonic’ has to be up there, surely? All that wasted potential of the book.

    Oh, and of course, ‘Hellblazer’. Another Keanu Reeves opus. Hmmm….

  10. NickM says:

    “Johnnie Mnemonic” – Never seen it, never wanted too. So ask me this> Why did they make that and not get a $100m to make “Neuromancer”. Why didn’t Hollywood? Keanu Reeves is the ultimate triumph of looks (and he is by any metric a good looking lad) over talent.

    You make some good points. But I rather liked Melanie as Hamlet (and really liked the supporting roles of Helena Bonham-Carter and especially Ian Holm . Having said that I always regarded it as a very playish play so I have always preferred it on the stage. But “Mosquito Coast” was by any metric bloody awful.

    Anyway, as I type this NZ has just won the Rugby World Cup. I weighed it and and then it was talkSPORT.

  11. Paul Marks says:

    I quite like the Two Towers film – although the point is “why change the book?”

    What is on the page is good (more than good) and there is nothing on the page that makes it hard to fim.

    It could be that Peter Jackson did not want to film the book straight because to do so might make people think he lacked “creativity” – but that smacks of insecurity. If something needs changing – then change it. But if it is not broke…. then do not “fix it”.

    For example of where (in my opinion) Peter Jackson does improve on the Lord of the Rings – the character of Arwen. Not who plays the character (that is not the point) – but in giving her a bigger role. Peter Jackson was right to do that.

    However, he may have had hint from a long dead man for that – J.R.R. Tolkien discribed “underwriting” the character of Arwen (in the main text, not in the story of Aragorn and Arwen which he added on to the Lord of the Rings) as his most serious error in the book.

    Still that is (mainly) in the first film – The Fellowship of the Ring.

  12. Laird says:

    Got to disagree about “That Thing You Do.” Thin plot, to be sure, but it’s not your generic teen angst movie (no teenage pregnancy scare; you’re remembering something else), there is some decent character development, and the music was brilliant. Captured the era perfectly. (And not just the title track, which is quite good; doesn’t this sound exactly like a 1964 hit?) Plus you’re treated to a very young Liv Tyler showing she can actually act (a little).

    I suggest that it’s inappropriate to judge any movie which you’ve only seen on a plane. Just about the worst possible environment; it’s bound to cloud your judgment.

    Oh, and what SAOT said.

  13. RAB says:

    Gawd! There are so many to choose from, but Jean Luc Goddard’s One Plus One has got to be well up on my list, except I don’t do lists 😉

  14. Andrew Duffin says:

    You’re so right about The Two Towers. Why muck up a perfectly good plot, especially when you muck it up in ways that are not even internally consistent? Bizarre.

    But nobody has mentioned Waterworld – that surely should be in the top two or three worst movies ever.

  15. Andrew Duffin says:

    Oh and Liv Tyler, yes, very decorative and all that; but why does she speak all her lines in a whisper? Whose idea was that?

  16. Adam Collyer says:

    “Bernard Hill’s soliloquy before leading the charge out of Helm’s Deep does go on”

    Indeed it does. And he doesn’t even get killed in the charge, which is pretty much the whole point of his character and most of the plot of the book. Jackson actually has him survive to the next film, The Return of the King. Gaaah!

  17. Adam Collyer says:

    Just reread what I wrote and it doesn’t really make sense – I meant that if Jackson was rewriting it he could have had Theoden die at Helm’s Deep, which would have been perfect.

  18. JuliaM says:

    “But nobody has mentioned Waterworld – that surely should be in the top two or three worst movies ever.”

    If he hadn’t then made ‘The Postman’, I’d agree. Surely that’s even worse!

  19. Single Acts of Tyranny says:

    Bod ~ I fancy you had to be a certain gender and age to get “Sideways” maybe I was just in the optimum demographic but there are certain scenes I can really identify with.

    To this day, when someone offers me a red I find myself thinking *I am not drinking fucking Merlot” with a smile.

  20. Bod says:

    I don’t need a movie to tell me to avoid drinking that muck, SAoT!

    Have to cite the circumstances as they pertain. Sideways was the donkey that broke the camel’s back. SWMBO has this friend, see, who turns up at (thankfully) infrequent and sporadic times. She’s such a sad case, I get dragged along for dinner at a vegan restaurant, where I’m discouraged from getting drunk, and am then usually chivvied into attending some rancidly sordid chick-flick like Sliding Doors, Two Lovers or The Human Centipede.

    It’s hard to explain the dynamic, and how I get suckered into this stuff, and I’m reluctant to reveal all the sordid details because you might be incited to saw your own limbs off with a spork, but let me fall back on the title of another cinematic bag of flaming dog-poo in order to render a partial explanation –

    It’s complicated

  21. NickM says:

    The inspired changes Peter Jackson made were to have Arwen at the Ford, to dump Tom Bombadil. But that’s in Fellowship. In TT as you say “why change the book?”. I don’t lknow but Aragorn spends an inhoridnate amount of time looking for a horse – in Rohan! Now I appreciate why they felt the need to big-up the romantic angles but I wouldn’t have done. There simply isn’t the material really and I would contend that JRRRT wasn’t much of a writer of love scenes anyway. The only sexual relationship in the entire thing that really rings true is Sam and Rosie. Arwen is just too like pre-destined (which is why the whole farrago in the movie with Elrond sending her to the havens doesn’t work). I don’t think Eowyn exactly works either. I mean the rebound thing from Aragorn and onto Faramir is just a bit pat and I didn’t like her complete change from feisty warrior princess into – I shall become a healer and leave fighting to the boys! I mean she’s just killed the Witch-King himself so she’s clearly got a talent for it. And that’s another niggle with the movies. I thought Miranda Otto was too old for such a “girly” role.

    “The Human Centipede” a chick-flick?!

  22. NickM says:

    I’m moderately surprised nobody has mentioned “Titanic”. Or indeed “Raise the Titanic” which prompted Lew Grade to quip that it would have been cheaper to lower the Atlantic. The fundamental problem with “Titanic” (apart from DiCaprio who I can’t stand) is that it is simply not as good a movie as “A Night to Remember” which cost tuppence ha’penny. That movie has a brilliantly cheap conception to demonstrate the ship’s impending doom. The drinks trolley moving. Sometimes a bit of ingenuity in the story-telling department is worth the millions they spent on the later movie.

  23. Paul Marks says:

    I think Miranda Otto managed well enough – but I get your point.

  24. PeterT says:

    Baise Moi…utter rubbish.

    Also couldn’t stand ‘vanilla sky’ with the (Tom) cruiser. One of very few movies where I’ve felt the urge to walk out.

    Have to say I really like ‘starship troopers’ and have watched it a few times.

    ‘Hellblazer’…was actually called ‘Constantine’ (‘Hellblazer’ is the name of the comics, Constantine is the protagonist). Apart from it not making much sense I quite enjoyed it. But a bit of a waste. But at least we were spared a Keanu with blond hair and an attempt at a scouse accent.

    LOTR….quite looking forward to the Hobbit movie(s?). The book is much more filmable than LOTR.

    Merlot’s ok.

  25. Bod says:

    I completely forgot to add Titanic. I loathed the movie, but I can see how 50%-1 of the population might have enjoyed it. There was a lot that could have been added to have improved it. A monstrous, skyscraper-height kraken, plucking Kate Winslet off the bow would have made a good start.

    They could have changed the story a bit and had the vessel run aground in an eldrich icy wilderness, just to have the passengers taken in ones and twos by shapeless, unknown creatures, and the remaining survivors finally hike to a hideous, nightmarish land with mighty eidolans built to unworldly, and wierdly repulsive non-Euclidean proportions …

    And Miranda was stretching it a bit as a blushing and vulnerable swordmaiden; and her maturity argued against her flighty nature in hero worship of Aragorn flipping over so blithely to Faramir. Even the daughter though that was a bit unlikely.

    The omission of Tom Bombadil was understandable and wise – the fact that the ring had no sway over him would have been a dangling plot issue that would have necessarily gone unresolved.

    The bit that I have to give Jackson real props for though is the character of Sam. The weakness I think in Tolkein’s own portrayal of Sam is the characterization is so utterly rustic and servile. When Sam exhibits heroism, the change is almost too distracting. If anything, it’s the lack of any kind of nous, except that gifted to him by the gaffer that does the most damage – it’s hard to imagine that a peasant (indentured servant even? :p) would have so little depth of experience other than boiling coneys, digging up spuds and mowing the lawn. Maybe if you were raised in the West Country in the first quarter of the 20th Century, it wouldn’t seem so jarring, but a full-bore authentic Sam delivered in undoctored panavision would have been too much.

    So, well played Peter. Well Played.

  26. Laird says:

    Bod, I like your re-write of “The Titanic”. Can we have both the kraken and the non-Euclidean eidolans? I’d go to see that! (But not the original; I’ve never seen it because I so dislike DiCaprio.)

    I’m looking forward to The Hobbit, too. But why in two parts? The book isn’t that long.

  27. Bod says:

    Hook me up with someone in Hollywood, Laird. I have a whole bunch of rough drafts right here! They can’t be any worse than much of the stuff we’ve seen produced lately.

    I was torn between a true Lovecraft homily and “The Terror” (which I think WOULD make a great movie, except that they’d have to put everone who watched the thing on suicide watch afterwards). They could use a lot of the props from ‘Master and Commander’ and ‘Amazing Grace’ (both of which don’t belong in Nick’s list).

    On “The Hobbit”, I suspect – and no doubt Jackson will prove me wrong – it’ll be a bit more extensive than just the book. I expect that the meeting with Gollum will be somewhat extended with a bit more background. It’s possible they’ll do a bit more with the transit thru’ Mirkwood, and possibly the Eagles. I predict that he’ll aim to satisfy the purists and have everything in there, right down to a full rendition of those bloody dwarves’ (dwarfs’?) breakfast song.

    And naturally, the story screams out for a side-telling of just what Gandalf found out, when imprisoned by The Necromancer.

  28. NickM says:

    The writer in me says “The Hobbit” is a single movie book. Of course Jackson made a bundle from LotR which obviously says three movies to spellbind us all but the problem is after the hobbit there is nowhere to go with Tolkien. I would contend the Silmarillion is unfilmable (and this is not a tech issue). They could conceivably do the stories of Turin and Beren and Luthien but they are seriously not going to play to the same audience (Turin’s story in particular is very dark) unless you really do to them what they did with the Ray Winstone “Beowulf” – (“I’m here to kill your monster” – in a Sarf Landan accent). And it’s mother is Angelina Jolie? Nah, there is essentially no more gold to mine from Toller’s vaults apart from dragging The Hobbit out of shape. It is possible that the “Narn i Chîn Húrin” could be filmed but unless it is made into a travesty it is not not going to appeal to the same folk who flocked to see LotR…

    The story elaborates on what is told of these characters in the published Silmarillion, starting with the childhood of Túrin, continuing through the captivity of his father in the Nírnaeth Arnoediad, and Túrin’s exile in Doriath, to Túrin’s time in Nargothrond, his unintentionally incestuous relationship with his sister Nienor, and ultimately ending with suicide by his sword Gurthang after having slain Glaurung.

    (From Wikipedia)

    Oh, and he also accidentally kills his best pal, Beleg Cúthalion. I mean in the truest sense of the word it contains “adult themes”.

    I’m sorry if there are spoilers here but I just assume everyone knows the Tolkien cannon.

    As far as Lovecraft is concerned Bod you might find the Borges short, “There are more things” which he wrote as a tribute quite interesting. It’s not commonly re-printed in English and it isn’t in “Labyrinths” but there is a “definitive” complete fictions that has been out for over a decade and it is in that. It’s not my fave translation but it’s a good starting point. Personally I objected to the loss of the “inconsolable cry of a bird” in “Death and the compass” but I’m just a Borges freak. Almost certainly the greatest writer of the last century. The money translations are “Labyrinths” and “The Aleph and other stories”.

    I apologise if you already know this. I read Borges and felt like “At last!” On a righteous planet he would have been paid beaucoup for Dr Who scripts.

  29. NickM says:

    Yes, Peter Jackson and Sean Astin did a number on Sam. The Sam in the Ralph Bakshi cartoon (which I recently re-watched) is an utter bumpkin. What I think Jackson did was very clever here. What I mean is over the long conception and writing of LotR you could get away with language “Sam roused Frodo” in a way you can’t now so when I first read the book as a ten year-old I didn’t “get” Sam but subsequently I’ve seen him as the true hero of the piece. Partially that was due to reading a lot more early C20th books, partially reading the letters of JRRT and especially the work of Jackson/Astin. Jackson deserves a lot of credit for taking what to modern ears seems a truly bizarre relationship and modernising it in a way that is extremely satisfying and dare I say closer to what JRRT meant than I first read in the early ’80s (because times change)? And full credit to Astin for actually doing it. As you say, Top Marks. That is how you adapt something properly – you make it original for a contemporary audience. What I’m trying to say is the movies don’t do the wierd master/servant homosexual undercurrent that I read in the books and that is true to Tolkien because neither Sam nor Frodo are gay (Pippin mind…) and JRRT’s Old Skool writing of the characters suggests to a modernish reader (like me in the ’80s) they are but that of course fails because Sam has a serious girlfriend and gets the last line in the book “Well, I’m back again” whilst feeling the love of his (newish) wife and his baby daughter on his lap. It’s a great scene to end on. It works much better than the various “courtly” romances and it makes a mockery of the idea that Sam and Frodo are lovers in an almost Greek pederastic sense which it is very difficult for a modern reader not to read into it. And by “modern” I of course include me in the early ’80s. Jackson/Astin (and indeed Wood) translate that brilliantly. I hope that makes sense.

  30. Umbongo says:

    I’m very diffident about joining in this debate but, FWIW, I’d add “Amélie” to the all-time shite list.

  31. Bod says:

    Nick, you make me giggle. FINALLY, you deliver on a request I made about 2 years ago, asking for a starter-recommendation for a Borges primer. And now I get one! I read Ficciones about a year ago, but I’ll take a look and see if I can find an anthology containing “There are more things”.

    Regarding Silmarillion, yeah, unfimable. Even if they were highly selective, you can’t ignore the Tuor/Turin, Huor/Hurin interplay and yeah, it’s all pretty grim stuff. I remember realizing how much better the Grand Guignol by Tolkein was, compared with Moorcock’s Elric stories. (cue IanB and maybe RAB for the Hawkwind connection :/)

    There’s enough other content such as the casting out of the Noldor etc that they could possibly construct a screenplay, but that would be like re-filming True Lies, but without Ahnold’s character.

    Post- “Book of Lost Tales”, I stopped reading the new books, I thought that BoLT was an opportunistic anthology of limited interest, and I can’t see how the subsequent stuff would have been any better. Maybe I’m being unfair, but we’ll know we’ve been overtolkeined when we get the live-action version of “Tree and Leaf” showing at the multiplex.

    I’m going to get firebombed for this, but if this story arc is to be further expanded, someone would have to risk the slings and arrows (and angrry, pauperized investors) and write something akin to “Gondor, 200 years beyond the fall of the Shadow”, which would be Epic in one or two ways I can think of. Ain’t going to happen – fortunately.

    Some works are so great, they must be left to stand alone (despite their acknowldged faults). LOTR (and, happily, Jackson’s adaptation) should be considered in this light.

  32. PeterT says:

    Apparently there will be more of ‘what Gandalf got up to while he was away’ in the Hobbit movies. Read that somewhere a while ago.

  33. Bod says:

    The first rule of being one of the Istarii, is that what happens in Eriador, stays in Eriador.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *