Lord of the Rings Single-Handedly Proves It Needs No Trashy Remake

With the recent news that Warner Bros. will be making new movies based on The Lord of the Rings books by J.R.R.

Tolkien, many fans had only one question on their minds: why?

We already have Peter Jackson's legendary trilogy, a perfect adaptation that has hardly aged in the 20 years since its release. And recent events only prove its superiority once again.

Last Thursday, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, which returned to a limited number of theaters (1,100) as a special event, grossed approximately $1.2 million in one night.

The film, which turns 20 in December, managed to outshine new releases such as Air and Renfield, which grossed $982,598 and $900,000, respectively, despite being shown in thousands more theaters (3,507 and 2,750, respectively).

It was the second highest grossing film of the day, trailing only The Super Mario Bros. Movie.

All of which begs the question of whether the constant stream of remakes and adaptations is even necessary when we have established classics that are still in demand.

Also, there are a lot of people who discovered their favorite movies much later, after all the theatrical runs were over.

It would be interesting, they say, if more theaters started releasing a classic every few months.

A new generation of fans of such masterpieces as Star Wars, Alien, Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, etc., who have only seen them on the small screen, would love to experience them in a new way.

Some movies could really benefit from a theatrical release, and it would make going to see them more of an event.

So maybe instead of wasting a lot of money on remakes and adaptations that no one asked for and that will inevitably be compared to their predecessors (often not in the newcomers' favor), studios should give people what they want and let them spend their money on what is actually worth it?