Return of the epics?

For the past two years, the approach to Christmas comes as much with the expectations of hobbits and orcs as reindeer. This year will be no different; with the final instalment of Peter Jackson's adaptation of JRR Tolkien's Lord of The Rings - The Return of the King - poised for its debut in New Zealand next week (it opens in the UK on 17 December), anticipation is beginning to peak.

Many who have seen sneak previews say it exceeds even its predecessors. One critic for Newsweek noted that the trilogy "could be the first franchise ever that didn't, at the end of the day, let audiences down, either because of laziness, pretension, greed or other phantom menaces".

The film is also expected to exceed both the global box-office of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring ($860 million), and its sequel, The Two Towers, which earned $921 million. Moreover, Oscar voters, traditionally unwilling to give best-picture to a fantasy, are being tipped to do just that.

But questions remain. It was hoped and predicted that Lord of the Rings would spark a glittering comeback for the epic blockbuster of old, that Hollywood would be inspired once again to tell fanciful stories on a magnificent scale. But rather than inspire, its vast success has, ironically, provoked fear - it worked once but is it worth risking again with a new project?

Few observers of the industry think Hollywood, mostly in the business of making endless remakes of often second-rate originals, will step up to the challenge. It's no more likely now than it was in 1998, when New Line approved the Rings project, that a film company will back such a risky special-effects-laden three-part epic.

"The risk that was taken was unprecedented, and the rewards enormous, but I don't see anybody out there looking for the next Lord of the Rings," says Premiere magazine's Glenn Kenny. "It exists as a singular piece of filmmaking ... a testimony to Peter Jackson's vision and perseverance.

"The kind of drive it takes to do this kind of film, resides in the creative side of the film business. The money men are not that creative. You'll never see a studio executive pitch a multi-part film, it has to come from the creative realm, just as George Lucas's Star Wars did."

While Harry Potter and The Matrix series have not come close to the breadth and scale of Lord of the Rings, and Hollywood may not be able to conceive of anything so ambitious, the trilogy has not been without effect on the industry, suggests film writer Graham Fuller.

"It's had tremendous impact as a film that takes a piece of very popular literature and does it justice. After all, you can't bring this kind of epic treatment to everything." Most films now being released in two-parts, Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill for instance, do not deserve the treatment. After all, Fuller says: "It's the same story in two parts."

For Peter Jackson, however, the effect has been marked. Coming to the trilogy with just one successful film to his name (Heavenly Creatures), he is now the first director to enter what actors like to call the 20/20 club - $20 million in guaranteed up-front salary against 20 per cent of the gross receipts. Jackson is expected to make more than £90 million for his efforts and is already preparing for his next project, a remake of King Kong, to be set in the 1930s and starring Naomi Watts.