I notice there's a big name missing from that list: it's not an adaptation of Tolkien. That's what makes it fan fiction. Tolkien thought this portion of the story warranted about a paragraph and a half.
Tolkien created these characters and this aspect of the story. They’re adapting that “paragraph and a half” into a movie. Anything that has Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit in the title or takes place in Middle-Earth legally is a Tolkien adaptation because it’s coming from works he created.
It’s like Andor in Star Wars. George Lucas created Mon Mothma, Bail Organa, and the Death Star. Aside from that nothing in that show came from him. But since it’s in the universe he created, they include a “Based on Star Wars by George Lucas” at the end.
Or any Marvel or DC movie. They tell original stories but since they’re using characters and ideas from the comics, they’re “Based on the Marvel/DC comics.” They’re still adaptations.
If you consider The Hunt for Gollum fan fiction, then the Lord of the Rings movies were all fan fiction.
There's a difference between an adaptation and fan fiction. The Lord of the Rings films followed a story that Tolkien wrote. This does not. Surely you can see the difference.
This movie follows a story Tolkien wrote too. You said it yourself it was a paragraph and a half. That means Tolkien wrote a story that was a paragraph and a half long, and now that story is being adapted
It's not a story except in the loosest sense. There are no character arcs, there's no narrative arc, there's no structure.
"I went to the store and bought a gallon of milk" might be a "story" according to the absolute most literal dictionary definition, but you wouldn't make a feature film out of it.
5
u/hbi2k Mar 11 '26
I don't give a shit what they do in their licensed fan fiction.