L. Ron Hubbard's Lord of the Rings

In 1969, United Artists took possession of the film rights for the Lord of the Rings. In the subsequent decade, a little religious group known as Scientology was making headway into Hollywood, bringing stars like John Travolta into their fold, and had enough connections to kick-start the careers of writer/directors like Paul Haggis. For the purposes of this, Ralph Bakshi obviously never got around to making his version; and L. Ron Hubbard, who had always had interest in propagating his creation through film, is able to get just the right people with him to produce an adaptation of JRR Tolkien's classic. This likely comes about prior to 1977, when Scientology's Operation Snow White was exposed. Nevertheless, with Scientology having been recruiting from counterculture circles in the 60s and 70s, the sorts with which LOTR was often popular, Hubbard and his confederates are also going to see this as an effort for recruitment.

So, the storyline, under L. Ron's 'suggestions', might take a different turn--the Ring itself being a representation of neuroses and personal stresses that Frodo by the end, through 'clearing' himself, can overcome. It may even end with Frodo unlocking his 'true power' and thus dominating Mordor. We can assume, given the wild divergences prior film proposals for the epic had taken, things might go very nutty indeed.

So...what are the likely effects, be it on pop culture, Tolkein's legacy, and even the cult itself? We can throw in a few variables, like of course the budget and exact nature of the film--be it something on the lines of Bakshi, or even live action, however that may look with the film technology of the time. Feel free to speculate on how this 'masterpiece' may have looked, and what comes next...
 
Last edited:
If Operation Snow White gets exposed during this timeline, Scientology's reputation is probably toast anyway, at least as far as growth potential goes.

IOTL, relatively respectable public-figures happily but quietly take speakers' fees from the Moonies, because Money. But that hasn't really helped the Unification Church shake its wackadoodle image among the middle-class general public. If you've got a COS blockbuster followed by Snow White coming to light, the long-term public reputation of the church will be "Those guys are just off-the-wall psychos. They made a cool movie back in the 70s, though."
 
Last edited:
Either way, I'd imagine Tolkein (or his estate) would be furious at the butchery of their work. Scientology preaches advancement and greatness through faith healing and following their leader's ideals (even though he was a massive hypocrite). Tolkein's works talk about cycles, the rise and fall of empires, and the general realization that while much greatness has been lost, there will always be a path if one is willing to work hard and sacrifice. Frodo shaking off the effects of the Ring would, quite simply, be seen as a bad joke. And that's just the starter. Gandalf would probably be an "enlightened being" who helps the others learn magic through methods suspiciously similar to Dianetics.

Then again, Battlefield: Earth came out and it was decidedly very little about scientology or even some of the original plot points (mostly because the 2 hour bore would have become a 5-6 hour torturous experience).
 
Either way, I'd imagine Tolkein (or his estate) would be furious at the butchery of their work. Scientology preaches advancement and greatness through faith healing and following their leader's ideals (even though he was a massive hypocrite). Tolkein's works talk about cycles, the rise and fall of empires, and the general realization that while much greatness has been lost, there will always be a path if one is willing to work hard and sacrifice. Frodo shaking off the effects of the Ring would, quite simply, be seen as a bad joke. And that's just the starter. Gandalf would probably be an "enlightened being" who helps the others learn magic through methods suspiciously similar to Dianetics.

Then again, Battlefield: Earth came out and it was decidedly very little about scientology or even some of the original plot points (mostly because the 2 hour bore would have become a 5-6 hour torturous experience).

Caveat that I've only read The Hobbit and about half of the LOTR trilogy, but...

I think Hubbard could probably shoehorn the COS' "philosophy" into Tolkien's narrative, without having to make substantial changes. The Ring could represent whatever enlightenment is supposed to come from Dianetics(the fact that they have to fight to get it dovetails nicely with the fact that you also have to make a big sacrifice of time and energy to attain Hubbard's wisdom), Gandalf is Hubbard, Sauron and the other bad guys are the bureaucratic/medical enemies of Scientology, Gollum represents those who were on the path to Clear, but got effed-up by psychiatry along the way etc.

I think the main challenge here would be getting even a semi-marketable movie out of 1970s Scientology, given the quality of cinema that the church was producing in that era OTL. (And yes, I have actually seen some of THOSE films.)
 
^ But to be sure, yes, Tolkien's estate would probably be deeply embarassed by any connection to Scientology, at least once its true nature came to light.
 
Either way, I'd imagine Tolkein (or his estate) would be furious at the butchery of their work. Scientology preaches advancement and greatness through faith healing and following their leader's ideals (even though he was a massive hypocrite). Tolkein's works talk about cycles, the rise and fall of empires, and the general realization that while much greatness has been lost, there will always be a path if one is willing to work hard and sacrifice. Frodo shaking off the effects of the Ring would, quite simply, be seen as a bad joke. And that's just the starter. Gandalf would probably be an "enlightened being" who helps the others learn magic through methods suspiciously similar to Dianetics.

Then again, Battlefield: Earth came out and it was decidedly very little about scientology or even some of the original plot points (mostly because the 2 hour bore would have become a 5-6 hour torturous experience).

Battlefield Earth was apparently hoped by the Church to be a boon for them, up to filling up theaters with members to try and boost ticket sales. Supposedly its leader David Miscavige considered it a great embarrassment.

Caveat that I've only read The Hobbit and about half of the LOTR trilogy, but...

I think Hubbard could probably shoehorn the COS' "philosophy" into Tolkien's narrative, without having to make substantial changes. The Ring could represent whatever enlightenment is supposed to come from Dianetics(the fact that they have to fight to get it dovetails nicely with the fact that you also have to make a big sacrifice of time and energy to attain Hubbard's wisdom), Gandalf is Hubbard, Sauron and the other bad guys are the bureaucratic/medical enemies of Scientology, Gollum represents those who were on the path to Clear, but got effed-up by psychiatry along the way etc.

I think the main challenge here would be getting even a semi-marketable movie out of 1970s Scientology, given the quality of cinema that the church was producing in that era OTL. (And yes, I have actually seen some of THOSE films.)

Perhaps here Hubbard manages to snag a capable director or two to get it through a real studio. Or we can speculate on how, uhm, interesting an attempt at a homegrown attempt would be. The seventies was the era of oddball efforts like Zardoz after all...
 
One thing we shouldn’t forget for all his fault L. R. Hubbard was a story teller, he would likely avoid some of the obvious trap. Also a major difference between Battlefield Earth is that it’s not really a well written, it’s written by a committee to fit Scientology’s theology. I think there’s a good chance that Hubbard would know it would be a bad idea to mess too much with the original story.
 
One thing we shouldn’t forget for all his fault L. R. Hubbard was a story teller, he would likely avoid some of the obvious trap. Also a major difference between Battlefield Earth is that it’s not really a well written, it’s written by a committee to fit Scientology’s theology. I think there’s a good chance that Hubbard would know it would be a bad idea to mess too much with the original story.

Hubbard had a prolific career in the 30s but by the 70s he was starting to get high on his own supply, so to speak, and was often tinkering with Scientology 'scripture', making up stories about underwater UFO bases and whatnot.
 
Not as bad as the Kubrick Beatles one tho.

Wait, no, it has Tom Cruise as "Elron The Clear", greatest warrior wizard ever. So yes, it does suck even worse.

Kubrick’s take on LOTR would have been worth watching because it would have good special effects and an actual sense of scope, even if casting the Beatles would probably also make it unintentionally hilarious.
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
Hubbard had a prolific career in the 30s but by the 70s he was starting to get high on his own supply, so to speak, . . .
And plus, people resent the hell out of a message film. Almost too much so. It’s like we have an over-attuned cheat detector mechanism, and as social monkeys we probably do! (okay, apes if you want to be hundred percent technically correct). So, most probably . . .

An unmitigated piece of shit! :openedeyewink:

It’s not going to be an equal opportunity offender, which is actually a good way make a movie. No, it’s going to be flat, wooden message film. Perhaps with a howler or two, so bad it’s good? Watchable for 20 minutes as I cable search, maybe.
 
Last edited:
L Ron Hubbard's LOTR will do to High Fantasy what Will Smith's Wild Wild West did to Steampunk. No film maker will touch the genre ever again. You'd need an early PoD where Mr Scientology is a good writer.

Scientology's a criminal racket disguised as a cult, and if you're in, you're either a crook or a mark. To any Scientologists who take exception to having your "religion" insulted, sorry, but it's true.
 
Last edited:
And plus, people resent the hell out of a message film. Almost too much so. It’s like we have an over-attuned cheat detector mechanism, and as social monkeys we probably do! (okay, apes if you want to be hundred percent technically correct). So, most probably . . .

An unmitigated piece of shit! :openedeyewink:

It’s not going to be an equal opportunity offender, which is actually a good way make a movie. No, it’s going to be flat, wooden message film. Perhaps with a howler or two, so bad it’s good? Watchable for 20 minutes as I cable search, maybe.

True, but this is the seventies, where a 'message film' could involve Sean Connery running around in red lingerie. ;)
 
Top