Is it correct that Amazon’s series on Tolkien’s works should be entitled “The Lord of the Rings”. A recent article in the Herald with an accompanying video perpetuates what I consider to be a misnomer. True, the video does include the title page from The Lord of the Rings but there are other snippets of information that would suggest that the material for the Amazon production will not focus on the tale of the destruction of the One Ring. That ship has already sailed, courtesy of Peter Jackson. I also imagine that there would be significant intellectual property issues is redoing The Lord of the Rings for television. As it is, Amazon paid close to $250 million to acquire the global TV rights – but to what. “The Lord of the Rings”? Or to all of Tolkien’s canon including “The Silmarillion”, “Unfinished Tales” and the various story lines appearing in Christopher Tolkien’s monumental “History of Middle-earth” and the publication of the storylines behind “The Children of Hurin”, “The Tale of Beren and Luthien” and the most recent “The Fall of Gondolin.” I would hope that the Amazon production will delve into some of those storylines.
Those in charge of publicity seem to have overlooked the fact that the new series is set in Middle-earth and will explore new storylines preceding “The Fellowship of the Ring” – the first book in Tolkien trilogy. Does that mean that the series will explore the story behind the making of the Rings of Power, the Last Alliance between Elves and Men and the fall of Isildur?
Necessarily, in my view, preceding that must be told the tale of Numenor and Sauron’s corruption of Ar-Pharazon which led to the drowning of Numenor and the removal of the Seven Stars and Seven Stones and One White Tree to Gondor. I should note that Numenor appears in some of the maps published by Amazon although it did not appear as such in any of the Tolkien maps. Yet one cannot tell the tale of Numenor in isolation, for Numenor was a form of reward for Men. And that reward requires a retelling of the struggle against Morgoth which is inextricably intertwined with the making of the Silmarils by Feanor and his subsequent downfall.
I suppose it all boils down top what is in a name. “Lord of the Rings” is a popular, populist and collective identifier for Tolkien’s work and I can understand why the publicists have chosen to use it. But unless they are going to retell, in more detail, the tale that has been told by Jackson, the use of the title is a misnomer and is misleading. Rather, I would prefer to see the series described, for the moment at least and until the story lines are clearly developed, as Tolkien’s Middle-earth.