Book Three and Book Four

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I am interested in your thoughts regarding Jackson's decision to put the three storylines in The Two Towers along one big chronological line.<P>The film started at one date and finished at the end. Thus, we kept changing between the three storylines. I have to admit, this bothered me. The most telling example was whenever we got a little clip of Merry and Pippin featuring the Ents. In the book, we got two chapters, (The Uruk-hai and Treebeard) which dealt exclusively with their story.<P>However, in the film, it was extremely hard to get into their storyline, because we kept flitting between them and the other two storylines. This also affected Sam and Frodo's adventure. They were constantly (in my opinion) being overshadowed by the events in Rohan. In the book, as we are all aware, Tolkien bracketed off the adventures, allowing the reader to get fully immersed in what was happening.<P>My question is this. Do any of you think that the way the story unfolded in the book would have worked on screen? As I write this I am thinking of Tarantino's Pulp Fiction, which I think is a great film and a sublime example of chopping up the chronology.<P>I am also thinking of a couple of fellow Downers in particular who are no doubt going to visit this thread and stick an axe through it. Go on, I welcome you!

[dancing spawn of ungoliant]

Good about the "three in one" way was that it was easy to understand which events happened at the same time and one didn't get bored with one storyline. Not so good in it was that it was (at least at the first time) a bit irritating. One had just got into the mood of Fangorn and then we suddenly are in the middle of the battle of Helm's Deep. Those who hadn't read the books the movie-like way may be easier to understand... and actually maybe it works better on screen in that way... but no axes from me.

[Rose Cotton]

The problem with doing the movie the same way Tolkien did the book is simply that one is a book and one is a movie and the two can't be done in the same fashon well.<P>If the movie had been done like the book it would have given the audience the impression of three seperate adventures instead of one whole story. By the time the movie was over they will have partially forgotten what was happening in the other storylines that ended somewhere in the middle. Not to mention half the audience wouldn't understand the time differences and would assume one story takes place right after the other. <P>You also lose the ability to bring it all together into one climax. They would all have their own seperate climaxes which again divides it all up into three seperate movies.<P>While the seperate story lines was just fine in the books the chonological order in the movies makes it so that each storyline is relevant to all the others. It keeps the viewers intrested.<P>And if you still want to view each adventure seperatly then be thankfull that the books havn't dissapeared off the face of the Earth and we are still able to read them.

[Finwe]

I think the reason PJ split up the storylines like that was, if he had stuck to the way it was done in the book, the audience would have had no sense of time. This way, we know what event happened when, and what the other characters were doing while an event was happening. In any case, you can't deny that it also created quite a bit of suspense! Right in the middle of the Battle for Helm's Deep, the scene switches to Entmoot, and so on.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Actually Finwe, I will completely disagree with you. I think the suspense was shattered every time it switched to a 60 second clip of the Ents with Merry and Pippin.<P>Jackson's decision was a compromise. I realise that it was a compromise which nearly every director would have taken, however I maintain that it was very difficult to get into two of the storylines (Frodo and Sam's and Merry and Pippin's).

[The Saucepan Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I am also thinking of a couple of fellow Downers in particular who are no doubt going to visit this thread and stick an axe through it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Hmm, I wonder which Downers you had in mind, Eomer? Well, I am certainly wielding no axe, but I will add a few thoughts.<P>Books and films are entirely different media. In a book, the author has the luxury of being able to leave his main characters for a chapter or more and return to them later. A film director has no such luxury. The audience needs to be kept in touch with all of the main characters throughout the film, otherwise they will lose track of (and most probably interest in) what is happening to who and when.<P>A film also needs to work towards a main climax. Rightly or wrongly (rightly in my view, given its visual and dramatic scope), Jackson chose Helm's Deep as the main climax of his film. It is in any case a pretty climactic event and, had it taken place halfway through the film, it would have conveyed to the audience the impression that the film was drawing towards its conclusion. The likelihood is that most people would then have sat pretty uncomfortably throughout the rest of the film, thus devaluing the ensuing journey of Frodo, Sam and Gollum. A film, if it is to stand alone, must have a beginning, a middle and an end, not one beginning, middle and end followed by another beginning, middle and end. Given that TTT is in any event the "middle" of the overall story, I think that it is to Jackson's great credit that he made it work in the way that he did, and that he received such critical acclaim for it.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> As I write this I am thinking of Tarantino's Pulp Fiction, which I think is a great film and a sublime example of chopping up the chronology. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Tarantino was telling three separate stories that take place at the same time, whereas Jackson was telling one story with three interdependant threads occuring simultaneously.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I realise that it was a compromise which nearly every director would have taken ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I would go so far as to say that it was a decision which every director worth his salt in Jackson's situation would have taken. To have done otherwise would have been box office suicide.<p>[ October 12, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Yes, Saucepan Man, you were one of those select few! <P>But that's cool because your posts are always extremely thoughtful and well laid out.<P>Point taken about Pulp Fiction. And yes, I do agree that it would be box office suicide (if not suicide then at least dropping an iron on your foot) to structure the film that way. However, I will maintain this one point. I did not like the way that the Merry and Pippin scenes (and to a lesser extent the Frodo and Sam scenes) were treated secondary to the Rohan scenes. Especially the parts in Helm's Deep where we switched over to the Ents for a few seconds and then returned.<P>I'd have much preferred some longer scenes, which would have added to the richness of the story. The Ents storyline was poorly received in the press when the film was released, and I believe that it was because of the poor ration of time they were granted.

[HCIsland]

I agree with you on that point Eomer and that is why I'm very much looking forward to the EE Towers which seems to have much additional material for the Ent and Frodo two thirds of the story line and not so much for the Rohan third.<P>I think the comparison to Pulp Fiction is apt, but there is a huge difference between the two. Pulp Fiction didn't cost $100 million to make. One of the most brilliant things about Pulp Fiction is it's non-linear time sense and perhaps something similar could have been done with Towers. A medium budget ganster film offers a director far more latitude than a mega-budget fantasy film. If Jackson didn't stick to some conventions there is absolutely no way he would have gotten the funding for his project. Goodness knows, LotR is already setting a new standard in this genre as it.<P>A non-linear timeline could have been absolutely brilliant, but by the same token it could have failed miserably and with this kind of money on the line, there is no way the benefit out-weighed the risk.<P>My own taste in movies is coming through here, but if you were to ask me which films were better, Pulp Fiction or LotR, I would say Pulp Fiction. But that doesn't stop LotR from being leaps and bounds above it's competition.<P>H.C.

[The Saucepan Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The Ents storyline was poorly received in the press when the film was released, and I believe that it was because of the poor ration of time they were granted. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Funnily enough, a newspaper review which I read before I saw TTT opined that the scenes with Merry, Pippin and Treebeard, being slower paced than the rest of the film, dragged somewhat. This was the only criticism in a review which otherwise lavished great praise on the film. Now this is only one review admittedly, but it was a well-written review in a quality newspaper and I can see where it is coming from. Personally, I would have preferred to see much more of Merry and Pippin with the Ents and, in particular, I would have liked to see a prolonged Entmoot with the Ents deciding to go to war themselves. But the review is, I think, indicative of how many filmgoers who have not read the books, or who have read them but are not fans in the same way that we Downers are, would have felt about these scenes.<P>In any event, Jackson has (understandably) chosen Frodo and Aragorn as his main characters. With limited screen time, the development of all of the other characters had to suffer in comparison (some more than others). And Merry and Pippin, being "lesser characters" in that sense, were always going to have less screen time allocated to them. In fact, it seems to me that they have less "book time" allocated to them too, but there is much more space in the book for their development. Again, I would have loved to have seen more of Merry and Pippin in both films since they are probably my two favourite characters, but I can understand why their story is underplayed in TTT in favour of Aragorn's story and that of Frodo and Sam (which I don't think suffers in comparison).<P>That said, I am hopeful of Merry and Pippin becoming much more central in RotK, since they once again become involved in the main story, and they have important roles to play.

[samrohan]

I agree with those thinking that the chronology of the book and film could not remain the same as it does not necessarily work in the film. The problem lies with the length of the film; Tolkien had more time on his hands when having Merry and Pippin meet Treebeard, this could not be portrayed in the movie.<BR>The paragraphs in the book alternating between heroes and locations made for a very good reading but PJ thought it necessary to concentrate on Rohan as he was some what limited with the time at hand.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

It calls into question the appearances of Elrond and Galadriel in The Two Towers. That whole 'Elves' bit in the middle of the film took up quite a bit of time.<P>Could they have been missed out? Granted, Hugo Weaving and Cate Blanchett are two of the biggest stars in the cast, so leaving them out of the middle film might seem strange. But would it really have been detrimental? Did Elrond and Galadriel really benefit from being in The Two Towers? Perhaps Elrond did, with the Arwen saga, but Galadriel......hmm.<P>I think that, in order to leave them out of the middle film, their characters and the storylines surrounding them would have to be absolutely spot on in The Fellowship. I don't think The Fellowship even came close to emphasising just how important Elrond and Galadriel were in Middle Earth.<P>If they had been dealt with accordingly, their impact in Return of the King might have been stronger. Or would it have been more confusing as no-one would remember who they were? In the book they were never directly involved in TTT, however their names were dropped ocassionally.<P>Maybe this would have allowed more Ent time which was arguably more important than a set-up to get more Elves into the story (Helm's Deep)