6 movies or just 3?
 

I watched the FotR extended version today and I realized with a shock that when Galadriel gives Sam the rope and not the box of soil, that the Scouring is probably going to be left out of tRotK. Which led me to thinking about all the other parts of the books that were left out that I really wanted to see brought to the screen such as Tom Bombadil and the Barrowdowns in FotR and alot of the Ent interaction and stuff that really enriched Tolkien's vision and message of Middle-Earth. Don't get me wrong, I really like the movies but this got me to thinking and here is the point of this post:<BR>Would you rather have had six movies, shorter but include everything in the books, keep the three and maybe them alot longer in respect to the books, or keep them just the same? I'm aware that most non Tolkienites would probably lose interest if there were six movies (maybe even some hardcore fans) but I think I would have prefered more movies and all of the book. <BR>Anybody else got a take on it?

Well, we already know <A HREF="http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=000644" TARGET=_blank>what burrahobbit thinks.</A> I agree.<P>--Belin Ibaimendi<p>[ January 11, 2003: Message edited by: Belin ]

Even though 6 movies would be wonderful, I don't think I would have the patience to wait 6 years for all 6 movies to come out (yes, maybe they would do 2 a year). And we were lucky that we got three, remember they originally wanted to put all the books in to ONE film. That would have been terrible.

I also agree with burrahobbit and with MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie on the If u had the chance to be PJ (or something like that). <P>6 movies, no question. Long movies too. With all the details including ALL the Ents, Tom Bombadil, the real Lothlorien, the Scouring of the Shire ... everything exactly how it was in the book!! <P>And, like burrahobbit and MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie, I'd release one in the winter, and one in the summer. That would be wonderful! But expensive too ...

That's exactly what I was thinking! Six movies, and leave everything in, <I>exactly how it happened in the books.</I> I was royally irritated at how much TT got shortchanged in the theater, and I'd love to see the whole thing! And, yes, release one in the summer, one in the winter, and so on.

I can understand the whole time/money/sanity thing but still, if you're going to undertake an adventure as big as Lord of the Rings, it should be done true to the essence of Tolkein and not shortchanged like the Two Towers was (Thanks Sapphire, I agree). And though I am itching to see RotK, I live in mortal fear that they will the most important parts of it out, or change them in some way that will spoil it for me. But we shall wait and see!<p>[ January 13, 2003: Message edited by: Fingo ]

I too would have loved to have seen the books brought to life in their full splendour.<P>But:<P>1. How feasible would it have been to have kept the cast and production team together long enough to make six 4 hour films? I suspect that it would have been nigh impossible, in which case there would inevitably have been cast changes and the whole thing might have ground to a halt.<P>2. Would the production company/investors have been prepared to devote sufficient resources to enable Jackson and co to make 6 (commercially untested) films in one sitting? I should imagine that they had a difficult enough time persuading the backers to go with the making of 3 films in one go. Of course, they needn't all have been made at once - but see my comments at 1. above for the possible consequences of that. <P>3. Would the mass film going public (the large number of non-Tolkien afficionados included) have been persuaded to sit through 6 four hour films that remained true to the books? It is quite likely that the backers would have had their doubts, in which case no films would have been made, or at the very least they would have lacked the SFX and wonderful visualisation that big budgets bring.<P>4. Even with the best will in the world, I doubt that Jackson would have satidsfied every Tolkien purist. These are films, not books, and, even had the books been followed to the letter, there would still be room for interpretation.<P>So, much as I would have loved to see the entire trilogy lovingly recreated on screen, I doubt that it could ever happen in reality. So, I am more than happy with what we've got - two (and hopefully three) great film <B>adaptations</B> of a masterful literary work.

I shant complain about the movies much,..... i mean they are very cool, pretty darn well done, and well.... pretty close to storyline. <P> I mean the movie could be as pitiful as the ancient animated versions and YIKES!..... then i would complain....<P><BR> Not that i may say even the extra 30-45 minutes per movie makes a huge difference and i wish they would have just released them that way..... but alas, capitalism at its finest.<P><BR> Maybe they will make 'the hobbit' with all their new found riches they have to spend.... i can only hope.

While we are dreaming, I've always felt the best way to be true to the book in a visual medium is through a television series, though the preduction costs would be through the roof. Each episode could correspond more or less to a chapter in the book. It would take three years for the series to complete.<P>The advantage a television series has is that it can take it's time revealing character and plot. A movie doesn't have this luxery to the same extent. It has to tell one big story. A television series can tell a whole lot of little stories that interwieve into a big story. I find the structure of LoTR to be naturally episodic.<P>Well guys, do you want to get started? I'll write the teleplay for the pilot. <P>H.C.<P>[ January 14, 2003: Message edited by: HCIsland ]<p>[ January 14, 2003: Message edited by: HCIsland ]

Actually, Saucepan Man, I think that PJ <I>did</I> tried to convince the backers on 6 movies. But they would only back the maximum of 3. The backers had orginially wanted only 1 (The horror just thinking about having only 1 LOTR movie made. That would have been drastic!!) And PJ pushed and pushed to have 3, and got his wish. I think he did say, "If I could have it my way, there'd be 6 movies in the making." Or something like that. Does anyone know for sure?

Slobber. Six would rock, releasing two each year would be so great!<P>We can dream, right?

Could you imagine having the movies follow the setout of LotR the way they go in Two Towers and Return of the King? We'd have one movie about Aragorn and friends (Book 3/5) and then the next would be about Frodo and Sam going to Mordor (Book 4/6). Much as we would all enjoy this no one from the non-Tolkien public would understand and it probably would result in huge losses in revenue.<P>Just a thought. What do you think?

Six movies would be pretty cool (I'll bet the execs. at the studio wish they had done it now that the total for both films might be approaching 2 billion $-not to mention DVD& video as well as merchandise sales)But could you even fathom how this forum would be if the movies were to follow the books exactly and then PJ went and "altered" some scene or character? What if we missed Fatty Bolger's preparations of Frodo's house in Crickhollow?(pukel-man shudders) The furor would go on for weeks. The Barrow-wight would have bandwith issues, and it is quite possible that this planet could stray too close to the event horizon of an enormous black hole and all things as we know them would come to an end.<P>But, I may be wrong.

Peter Jackson never ever talked about doing 6 movies. His plan was always for three, which kind of makes sense really! Especially if they had left the ending for TTT the same. They break down very well into 3 books, I think. <P>But I would rather watch 6 individual movies that were exactly like the book, or any number of movies of any length. Money would not be much of an issue, either. If I could see a 100% accurate telling of the story... <P>but then again, it's not very plausible, is it? We have seen a pretty good example of how filmmakers would rather twist the story to put their own spin on it than faithfully retell a book exactly as it is written. Look at the remake of Planet of the Apes for example - great movie, but hardly faithful to the original. I can understand how as artists the filmmakers want to present their own vision, though. I just think that they aren't as big fans of the books as they say they are.

The notion of six films is alarming and pretty ill-conceived, if I may be blunt. Besides the fact that it would be financially impossible (to shoot them all at once, at least; which I think is essential to telling Tolkien's story with perfect continuity, by the by), you just can't include every last blooming detail from the book and make an interesting movie. Call me what you will, but it's true. It is possible (and I would add crucial) for cinema and literature to be divided into separate, distinct, independent from one another disciplines. What makes a great book (which LOTR is, I honestly prefer the book to the films) WILL NOT always make a great movie. Peter Jackson realized this early on and strove to make as faithful a REPRESENTATION of the Tolkien mythology as he could, given the constraints of the medium he works (very very well) in.<P>Now, that being said, I am very intrigued about the possibility of a LOTR television series. TV is a completely different beast than film, and in that setting, a "chapter-and-verse" translation would definitely work. That way, we can have Tom, the Downs, Glorfindel, the Warg attack at Moria, a proper Entmoot, NO elves at the Deep, boring Faramir, and everyone's favorite sacred cow, the Scouring. Then everyone can be happy, because happiness, apparently, IS the ultimate measure of aesthetic merit.

#1 I think Sauce Pan Man (what kind of alias <I>is</I> that?) hit it right on the spot. And though there are some merits to the idea of a TV-series, it would never had the economy to bring Middle Earth to live in the way PJ did.<P>#2 About the original plans... PJ originally had a deal with Miramax to do LotR as <I>two</I> movies. But after a lot of the preparing work had been done, Miramax came back & asked if he could do it as only one. PJ refused & was given a very short time (I believe less than a month) to find another investor who would finance this. And it was actually the new investor, New Line Cinema, or rather one of their executives (forgot the guy's name) that said "This is not 2 movies, it's 3". And then it was settled... The New Line Cinema guy who suggested it said that he rather liked the idea of making 3 movies at one time from a pure business point of view! A lot cheaper than making 3 seperately