The most suitable breakdown: movies vs books

[Sarumian]

Taking into account all criticism towards PJ's choices in selection/omission/invention of plots and scenes, how would you like the adaptation to be made? It can be shoot as series, where all lines from the books are included. In this case the budget for special effects and visualisations is going to be limited and much would depend on actors' ability to keep a viewer engaged.

The opposite idea is just to make one movie out of the entire LOTR, cutting off a significant part of the plot. Such version can be very impressive and powerful, however, it's not easy to make it consistent and comprehensible.

I think, the right balance can be achieved if The Hobbit is made as one movie and is follower by a five-part LOTR:

1. The Flight To Rivendell
2. The Ring Goes South
3. The Two Towers
4. The Return Of The King
5. The Age Of The Rings Ends (starting right after the Battle of Pelenor Fields)

Then, if a script writer and a director feel confident enough, they can proceed with caution on making a LOTR prequel (and thus The Hobbit's sequel) - The Shadow Is Growing, based on the other Tolkien's material. This would allow to explore Tolkien's universe without making a damage to the adaptation of the books.

[Nerwen]

No, that would drag out the story interminably. I believe PJ made the right overall decision in shooting “Lord if the Rings” as a trilogy– and I don’t think that’s what most criticisms have been about, anyway.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

No, that would drag out the story interminably. I believe PJ made the right overall decision in shooting “Lord if the Rings” as a trilogy– and I don’t think that’s what most criticisms have been about, anyway.

I agree, I think that the number of films (and their length) is fine. For my part, however, I would have made a film of The Hobbit first. Even if this hypothetical "The Hobbit" was three hours long like any of the films of The Lord of the Rings I think it could work. I think an embellished "The Hobbit" PJ-style could also have worked as two films - three being a bridge too far - but that it's unnecessary. Either way, however, I think The Hobbit should have come first, with "The Necromancer" and the mystery of Gollum and the Ring left ambiguous until "The Fellowship of the Ring." I think The Lord of the Rings works far better as a narrative which follows on from The Hobbit than The Hobbit does as a prequel to The Lord of the Rings.

I think adapting The Lord of the Rings as a single film would be impossible.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

I agree, I think that the number of films (and their length) is fine. For my part, however, I would have made a film of The Hobbit first. Even if this hypothetical "The Hobbit" was three hours long like any of the films of The Lord of the Rings I think it could work. I think an embellished "The Hobbit" PJ-style could also have worked as two films - three being a bridge too far - but that it's unnecessary. Either way, however, I think The Hobbit should have come first, with "The Necromancer" and the mystery of Gollum and the Ring left ambiguous until "The Fellowship of the Ring." I think The Lord of the Rings works far better as a narrative which follows on from The Hobbit than The Hobbit does as a prequel to The Lord of the Rings.

Logically, The Hobbit should have been made first, and I would have preferred it to be either one long film or two medium-length films, though I think I'd lean towards the latter. Having said that, I'm not sure it would work if PJ was the one to do this. Seeing how lightly he takes TH several years after the success of LotR, his 'sequel' of LotR would have been a disastrous commercial blockbuster had his TH turned out well. Unless, of course, he carefully planned both the stories the way he did with the LotR trilogy.

The idea of an LotR television series is intriguing, but I'm not sure the first part of FotR is dramatic enough to support this. It would be very slow, and things that are appealing page-by-page may not be appealing on screen. On a different note, I think The Children of Húrin could make a great single film.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think TH would have really appealed to me if:

1. The director stuck to the fact that it's a children's book, not a YA novel. I understand changing the target-group can sometimes work, but it didn't (and, to me, won't) for TH.

2. They didn't include Radagast and Azog, who in my opinion serve only to make the film messier than necessary.

3. In keeping with the idea of a younger audience, there was less fanservice (especially with regard to the Dwarves). I think this draws too much attention away from the protagonist.

4. There were no Silly Romances. 'Nuff said.

5. TH was severely Hollywoodised –*far more than LotR imo –*and I think less of this would have been good for the film, which came across to me as insincere and contrived. I felt PJ tried quite hard to stick to the spirit of LotR, but he didn't have the same respect for TH.

Personally, though, I would for TH focus on these scenes (by 'focus', I mean closely follow the book):

1. Gandalf's meeting with Bilbo.
2. The Dwarves' entry into Bilbo's hole.
3. The troll scene.
4. Beorn's halls.
5. The monumental moment when Bilbo names his sword Sting. I don't think the singing/poetry here would have worked in a film, but taunts would have been fun.
6. The famous escape from the Elvenking's Halls.

Sadly the rest of the book is a bit of a haze for me, but hopefully I'll get back on this. Basically, I would try to put into TH a simple charm that brings out the child in me, and not an epic air that suggests a looming catastrophe. The tone would have to grow more serious as the story went along, but I don't think it would be as solemn as LotR.

[Sarumian]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

No, that would drag out the story interminably. I believe PJ made the right overall decision in shooting “Lord if the Rings” as a trilogy– and I don’t think that’s what most criticisms have been about, anyway.

I can see the point of here but wasn't there quite a discussion about omissions made in FoTR? The travel through the Shire, Old Forest, the house of Bombadil and Barrow Downs are not in the movie. While it is justifiable to skip them if it is only one film, these are still among my favourite chapters of the book. The skirmish with wolves in Hollin and the encounter between Gandalf and Balrog in the Chamber of Mazarbul is missing as well as some events during the journey down the Great river, while the council of Elrond is shortened.

RoTK, on the other hand, seemed to be far too long to so many viewers and yet the whole Scouring of the Shire was thrown away, and the screen cut look as one none-stop battle scene.

Why then not to try to do two normal length movies where there is great material for two movies?

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Sarumian

I can see the point of here but wasn't there quite a discussion about omissions made in FoTR? The travel through the Shire, Old Forest, the house of Bombadil and Barrow Downs are not in the movie. While it is justifiable to skip them if it is only one film, these are still among my favourite chapters of the book. The skirmish with wolves in Hollin and the encounter between Gandalf and Balrog in the Chamber of Mazarbul is missing as well as some events during the journey down the Great river, while the council of Elrond is shortened.

RoTK, on the other hand, seemed to be far too long to so many viewers and yet the whole Scouring of the Shire was thrown away, and the screen cut look as one none-stop battle scene.

Why then not to try to do two normal length movies where there is great material for two movies?

Because... here we go... "films and books are different mediums”. Yes, this is the annoying fanboy rallying-cry, often used to dismiss any criticism of the movies whatever... but is literally true, nonetheless. If you want everything included, you need to do it as a series.

Besides, at that time Jackson could simply not have got away with what you’re suggesting. Unknown director adapts famous, beloved trilogy as five-parter? There wasn’t the current tolerance then for drawing every book into multiple parts for the screen adaptation– and Jackson didn’t have legions of fans to support his every decision.

That said, I do think some of the omitted material could well have been included, without the drastic structural changes you suggest. It’s a question of focus– various sequences that are in the films could have been shortened; the fan-fiction-y added scenes could have been left out (should have been, in fact).