Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Lord of the Rings:
How would you structure a four film LOTR series?
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Ardamírë
Valinor


Aug 8 2012, 1:52am

Post #1 of 28 (1079 views)
Shortcut
How would you structure a four film LOTR series? Can't Post

With the news of the Hobbit becoming a trilogy, I've seen quite a few people mention that a fourth film would have immensely helped the current trilogy.

My question for you is how would you structure such a four film series?

You can base your structure off the existing movies, or you can base it off the book. So what are your ideas?

"...and his first memory of Middle-earth was the green stone above her breast, as she sang above his cradle while Gondolin was still in flower."


tolkiennerd
Lorien


Aug 8 2012, 2:40am

Post #2 of 28 (585 views)
Shortcut
my idea [In reply to] Can't Post

let's base it off the films. Fellowship of the Ring and the Two Towers would be the same. Film 3 (the Lord of the Rings the War of the Ring) would begin where the ROTK film does and end with Shelob and the Rider of Rohan arriving at the pelennor fields (note Saruman would not die in Isengard). Frodo being taken up the Orc tower, Faramir being taken to be burned the Rohan looking out at the vast armies of Mordor...epic clifthanger. film 4 would be the rest of ROTK with most of the stuff left out from the book.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 8 2012, 4:29am

Post #3 of 28 (571 views)
Shortcut
I think six films would have been perfect [In reply to] Can't Post

 


Ruinwen
Rivendell


Aug 8 2012, 4:36am

Post #4 of 28 (568 views)
Shortcut
Yes! [In reply to] Can't Post

Six films would have been great.


GoodGuyA
Lorien

Aug 8 2012, 4:48pm

Post #5 of 28 (549 views)
Shortcut
Whenever this comes up... [In reply to] Can't Post

I just have to wonder if the person saying it understands film at all. The main point that I think completely eliminates any prospect of six films is plainly this: Book 6 would be the most boring fantasy film ever devised. Many people will tell you that RotK is bottom heavy, but just imagine that amplified into an entire movie. A movie does not require an entire chapter of reunion. A book doesn't even, but Tolkien did three chapters of so little interesting happening because he thought he had to tie it up all realistically. And don't get me wrong, I loved the Scouring, but it's so antithetical to any conclusion. After it, you'd think "Okay, what's gonna happen now?" and it never does.

I think four films is the only realistic way to actually bring to story together in the most complete way, but I think it still would never be as good as what we have. You have to understand that LotR was lightning in a bottle. Everything came together in the right place. It would not have been made as it was if the country was different, if the production staff was not in that country, if there wasn't a single executive who had full faith in the production, and if it wasn't Lord of the darned Rings. An actual full adaptation will never be as heart filled or as good as these movies. That is a straight up fact. Cinema is different than literature, and while LotR has stumbling blocks, it was made with pure love and pure luck.

I would personally not support any remake to ever come, since I feel that just absolutely discounts the work that was done on these movies. However, a four film adaptation could work. There would still stuff need to be cut, of course (COUGHTOMBOMBADILHESNOTUSEFULATALLCOUGHHH), but it would make book fans an iota less angry. Fellowship has to be the same. There's nowhere you can end before it. End it in Moria and you just give no hope at all, and the opening to the next movie is totally shot. Boromir's death is the only way to end it. It gives hope for the audience that the Fellowship will live on rather than a downer, which is not what LotR is about.

Two Towers gets a bit tricky given how that movie's paced overall. You can absolutely not have Shelob in that movie. That would make you run into the "Book 6" problem. I'm not sure what you would put as a climax on Frodo's side, but I think you could actually reach the end of Book 3 if the filmmaker chose to. It's not a terrible ending, given that the heroes move to an entirely different location, but it certainly undermines Helm's Deep.

That makes me come to an impasse. Obviously the logical idea of the fourth film is to have the battle with Mordor to the conclusion, but it's difficult to say when the cut-off of the film before that should be. After the Battle of Pellenor fields? Well then, that's a lot of nothing happening in the main plot. The middle of the Battle? Sort of makes for a really badly placed cliffhanger, which basically cheapens it. Before the Battle? Then what would be the climax of Film 3? I know that battles =/= climaxes, but each story needs to have a crescendo to end it off or there is literally no fulfillment.

Like I said, we got extraordinarily lucky that these films turned out as they did. I really don't think there is a "better solution" that will satisfy everyone. The fact that we literally got some of the best films ever out of them (at least one of these films has to be in the Top 100) shows that those working on them had a real cinematic understanding of what made a great story. Deviations from the text or no, it was the best possible thing we could have dreamed for.


Ardamírë
Valinor


Aug 8 2012, 5:14pm

Post #6 of 28 (528 views)
Shortcut
So just splitting ROTK? [In reply to] Can't Post

It would have to be done almost perfectly. I don't know that there's a good splitting place, though. And just because there'd be a cliff-hanger, that doesn't mean the rest of the film would be satisfactory. The film has to lead to something, not just a cliff-hanger.

"...and his first memory of Middle-earth was the green stone above her breast, as she sang above his cradle while Gondolin was still in flower."


Ardamírë
Valinor


Aug 8 2012, 5:17pm

Post #7 of 28 (494 views)
Shortcut
Nice try! [In reply to] Can't Post

But not what I asked Wink

I knew people would say they'd rather have six films, so I purposefully asked about only four.

And since you're one of the most vocal critics of Jackson's films, I was hoping to hear your opinion about how to do a four-film treatment.

"...and his first memory of Middle-earth was the green stone above her breast, as she sang above his cradle while Gondolin was still in flower."


Ardamírë
Valinor


Aug 8 2012, 5:22pm

Post #8 of 28 (497 views)
Shortcut
Book 6 [In reply to] Can't Post

I completely agree with you about book six. I absolutely enjoy reading it, but I definitely don't think it would make a good film in and of itself. The destruction of the Ring would happen far too quickly, and then what?

"...and his first memory of Middle-earth was the green stone above her breast, as she sang above his cradle while Gondolin was still in flower."


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 8 2012, 6:07pm

Post #9 of 28 (536 views)
Shortcut
Calm down [In reply to] Can't Post

There are numerous ways to turn LOTR into six films. We have three books, each split into two books, which is certainly enough material to make six films.

I mean, PJ is turning one 300-page book into THREE films!

Are you saying that he doesn't understand film at all either?

You are assuming that "book 6" would simply be what PJ gave us with ROTK, but cut in half. But if PJ included the longer storylines of Aragorn's path through the mountains and rally against the corsairs (which would make for excellent cinema - horrifying ghosts, freeing of slaves, ancient stone of Erech (with flashbacks to Isildur's landing?), a HUMAN army arriving at the Pelennor, etc), the storyline of Ghan-Buri-Ghan and Theoden, a longer bit of Frodo and Sam in Moria, the wonderfully charming and humanizing relationship between Merry and Beregond (and Bergil), the story of the Dunedain, etc, he could have easily created two films put of the ROTK.

I understand film very well, thank you very much. And the ROTK is so full of amazingly cinematic detail, that it could easily be turned into two, full films.

If the Hobbit can be turned into three films, LOTR can be turned into six films.


(This post was edited by Shelob'sAppetite on Aug 8 2012, 6:09pm)


Otaku-sempai
Half-elven


Aug 8 2012, 7:39pm

Post #10 of 28 (540 views)
Shortcut
LotR film quadrilogy [In reply to] Can't Post

In. a four-film series, I don't see a need to eliminate Tom Bombadil or the Barrow-downs from the story. However, to accomodate those sequences, the first film would end with the company's escape from Moria or the arrival in Lorien--moving the breaking of the fellowship to Film 2.

Film 2 would see Frodo, Sam and Gollum as far as the Black Gate, but the bulk of it would alternate between Merry and Pippin with Treebeard up to the Ents' assault on Isengard and the events leading up to and including Helm's Deep.

Film 3 would begin with King Theoden, Gandalf, Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas reunited with the cousins in Isengard. Gandalf breaks Saruman's power and Wormtongue hurls the palantir at him, but the Wizard and Grima are still alive at the end of the encounter. Gandalf and Pippin go south to Gondor where Pippin enters into the service of Denethor. Aragorn and the others remain with Theoden until they reach Ered Nimrais. There, the Grey Company takes the Paths of the Dead. Frodo and Sam would get more exposure in this film, encountering first Faramir then Shelob. Faramir returns to Minas Tirith, informing Gandalf and Pippin that Frodo and Sam are still alive.

In Film 4, the seemingly dead Frodo is found by Orcs and taken to Minas Morgal, where Sam must rescue him. Faramir falls. We watch Denethor's descent into madness. The Rohirrim continue to ride to Gondor. The Batlte of the Pelennor Fields. Theoden falls; Eowyn and Merry take on the Witch-king. Aragorn arrives with reinforcements (from Southern Gondor this time?). Things move along much as in the trilogy, this time including the Scouring of the Shire, including the deaths of 'Sharkey' and Wormtongue.

The pacing still feels a bit off. There is still a lot happening here in the final film. It may need some reworking yet.

"Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house." - Aragorn

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Aug 8 2012, 7:41pm)


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 8 2012, 8:45pm

Post #11 of 28 (469 views)
Shortcut
Also, to clarify [In reply to] Can't Post

I am not implying that a six-film LOTR would follow the six book structure of the books. Intercutting between the Frodo and Sam storyline, and that of the "Captains of the West," would still be absolutely necessary in a 6-film adaptation.

But for the two ROTK films, you could add a whole lot of very exciting stuff ranging from the Paths of the Dead sequence as done in the books, to Ghan-buri-Ghan. There's loads of very rich cinematic material that PJ had to cut due to time restrictions.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 8 2012, 8:53pm

Post #12 of 28 (460 views)
Shortcut
Fellowship could end in Rivendell [In reply to] Can't Post

You have a natural conclusion there, just as Tolkien wrote it. The lay audience would think: "Okay, the Ring is at a safe spot. I wonder what will happen next?" Either that, or it could end with the Fellowship's departure from Rivendell.

The film could be well-filled out with lots of very cinematic material, including the Barrow Downs (perhaps conflating Ringwraiths with barrow wights, though I would not condone that...), flashbacks to Aragorn's backsory, and an explanation of the Dunedain, Gandalf's encounter with the Black Riders on Weathertop, a fleshed out plot with Bill Ferny at Bree, perhaps Crickhollow (with the very cinematic chapter of the attack on Fatty Bolger...), a few scenes of Sauron's "growth," Gandalf's run in with Radagast, scenes of Radagast communing with the wildlife and sending the eagle, clips of Sauron's emissaries threatening the dwarves of Erebor, Gollum's imprisonment in Thranduil's halls, and escape, etc.

In short, if PJ knew that the LOTR films would be massive Box Office successes, and New Line knew it too, it would have been very easy (and very profitable) to turn LOTR into six films.

IMO, it would have alleviated the "hop from point A to B to C" aspect of the movies - particularly FOTR after the Shire.


Otaku-sempai
Half-elven


Aug 8 2012, 9:31pm

Post #13 of 28 (475 views)
Shortcut
'Fellowship of the Ring' and 'The Ring goes South' [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
You have a natural conclusion there, just as Tolkien wrote it. The lay audience would think: "Okay, the Ring is at a safe spot. I wonder what will happen next?" Either that, or it could end with the Fellowship's departure from Rivendell.



Perhaps the latter. Otherwise, you might as well call Film 1 Flight to the Ford and tltle the second film, The Fellowship of the Ring. This way, you can keep FotR for the first film title and the second one could be something like, The Ring Goes South.

"Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house." - Aragorn


Spaldron
Rivendell


Aug 8 2012, 11:21pm

Post #14 of 28 (467 views)
Shortcut
Six films would be overkill [In reply to] Can't Post

But incase you hadn't noticed the EE dvd's are split in two (at roughly two hours each) so technically you could just pretend that each disc is one film, therefore six films in total. Cool

But I like the idea of four films, with the first two the same then ROTK split in half.

Everyone knows ROTK is super dense and feels very rushed at times, trying to cram too much story into one film was tricky (hence why its my least favourite of the three, though that doesn't mean I don't like it). I'd end the first part midway through Pelennor fields, probably around the same point that the EE dvd's split (although I'd give it a proper climactic ending). Then film 2 kicking off with some Aragorn backstory (like the Gollum prologue) before throwing us right back into the battle.

Even if Jackson never goes back to the trilogy it'd be great if they released all the deleted scenes (remastered) so fans could edit their own versions.

"A single dream is more powerful than a thousand realities."

(This post was edited by Spaldron on Aug 8 2012, 11:23pm)


GoodGuyA
Lorien

Aug 8 2012, 11:30pm

Post #15 of 28 (472 views)
Shortcut
Yeah, you COULD [In reply to] Can't Post

But what kind of film is that? Seriously, it's an entire book of set-up and then two climatic events. Having Gandalf calmly sit in a room and tell Bilbo about everything that's going on does not make for dynamic storytelling. Some rather daft people say LotR is nothing but walking, but the first half of FotR is that. Lots of jokes, walking, jokes, false stirs of excitement, and then the end mercifully has something to tide you over. It's a structure which doesn't make a film the least bit engaging. Traveling with Hobbits gets boring real fast. There's no interesting dynamic between Frodo and his friends, as Tolkien wrote it, at least not until A Conspiracy Unmasked, which again if adapted "properly" would just be a real snore. It's all about what might happen and what could become of it. You get no sense of urgency or direction. Just Hobbits talking and making jokes.

This isn't to say that the material is bad or anything. I fell in with Tolkien via the books because I thought they were truly engaging, but the interesting stuff isn't even hinted to until the Council of Elrond is held. It's an incredibly slow start and does not make for interesting cinema whatsoever. Even if you do like it though, it's also incredibly misleading to what the later parts of the book are. Book 1 is centered around the Hobbits losing their innocence in the world. The rest of the books are about the world and its time of dire need, and it never really touches upon the prior subject again except for some longing for home (which even Aragorn does). There is simply no way 6 Films as taken by the books directly could work.


Ardamírë
Valinor


Aug 9 2012, 2:14am

Post #16 of 28 (410 views)
Shortcut
I really like this set up. [In reply to] Can't Post

The only thing I'm unsure of is the Scouring of the Shire. I mean, it's great to read about, but should it be in a film version? I don't see how it can work.

I like your structure overall though. I especially like Shelob being the climax of film 3. It should be as such. Shelob is the final barrier on their way into Mordor, and she really needs to be the climax.

"...and his first memory of Middle-earth was the green stone above her breast, as she sang above his cradle while Gondolin was still in flower."


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 9 2012, 2:41am

Post #17 of 28 (449 views)
Shortcut
Not it isn't [In reply to] Can't Post

You are just saying that it is an entire narrative of set-up and then two climatic events.

A filmmaker would have to create a complete structure for each film, in order to get the beats and climaxes and crescendoes right. Just as PJ will have to do with three Hobbit films.

Sorry, but of three Hobbit films is not overkill, six LOTR films is also not overkill. There are just reams and reams of excellent, cinematic material to go through.

I mean, the plotline of Aragorn going through the Paths of the Dead, enlisting the ghosts, attacking the corsairs, freeing the people of the Pelargir, and arriving at the Pelennor, could in and of itself take up half a movie!

There is a lot of wonderful drama, and numerous cinematic moments in the books, that didn't make it to the screen. With more film time to work with, PJ could have made some true epic masterpieces.

As they are, each film feels neutered and rushed, IMO. Particularly the characterization.


Otaku-sempai
Half-elven


Aug 9 2012, 4:38am

Post #18 of 28 (431 views)
Shortcut
The Scouring of the Shire [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
The only thing I'm unsure of is the Scouring of the Shire. I mean, it's great to read about, but should it be in a film version? I don't see how it can work.



I always felt that the Scouring of the Shire was dramatically necessary to show how far the four Hobbits have grown since they left home. One year earlier and none of them would have been able to confidently take on human and Half-orc thugs, much less save the Shire from Saruman himself. It was a fitting end to their journey and the longer structure of a film quadrilogy should be able to accomodate it, with each film covering approximately one-and-a-half of the six books of LotR.

"Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house." - Aragorn

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Aug 9 2012, 4:41am)


Spaldron
Rivendell


Aug 9 2012, 3:08pm

Post #19 of 28 (406 views)
Shortcut
I really do think more than four films would be pushing it. [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
I mean, the plotline of Aragorn going through the Paths of the Dead, enlisting the ghosts, attacking the corsairs, freeing the people of the Pelargir, and arriving at the Pelennor, could in and of itself take up half a movie!


I doubt many people would pay to see just that. Making an entire film out of just a handful of chapters concerning just one little part of the story would be insane.


Quote
There is a lot of wonderful drama, and numerous cinematic moments in the books, that didn't make it to the screen. With more film time to work with, PJ could have made some true epic masterpieces.


As far as I'm concerned LOTR were true epic masterpieces, just because they didn't include everything from the books doesn't make them bad films, in fact it makes them all the better and more enjoyable for it. If they had filmed LOTR straight off the page it would've been a mess (cinematically speaking). No studio in their right mind would give a filmmaker essentially unlimited time and money to shoot half a dozen or more films and few audiences would have the patience to sit through it all.


Quote
As they are, each film feels neutered and rushed, IMO. Particularly the characterization.


Only the last film feels rushed. FOTR and TTT in particular have plenty of breathing space for the characters.

"A single dream is more powerful than a thousand realities."


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 9 2012, 3:31pm

Post #20 of 28 (420 views)
Shortcut
The plotline [In reply to] Can't Post

Of Aragorn and the Paths of the Dead is full of lots of cinematic material. I'm not suggesting it take up a whole film, but it could take up a significant amount of time, and actually strengthen the plotline.

Aragorn enlisting the ghosts and taking them to the Pelennor in film ROTK was a let down for many, and the green scrubbing bubbles were an unfortunate convenience, that wiped away the significance of the rest of the battle.

A longer film would have been able to fit in a much more cinematic storyline.

Why would people "not pay to see" a sequence where Aragorn travels through a haunted mountain, is followed by a wispy army of horrifying ghosts which scare the bejeesus out of the local population, enlists their support at the Stone of Erech, thus fulfilling his destiny, fights the pirates that have taken over the Pelargir, frees the people who were enslaved by the corsairs, and then arrives on the Pelennot with a HUMAN army that turns the tide on the Pelennor fields. This would not only be cinematically more satisfying than what we ultimately got, but it would have boosted Aragorn's character and characterization significantly. As it stands, Aragorn's plotline in ROTK is quite weak.

Then imagine a potentially wonderful scene where Aragorn refuses to enter Minas Tirith before his time comes, and sets up a tent on the field instead. A gesture of humility and nobility that would have played excellently on film, and to a general audience.

I don't agree with you that only ROTK was rushed. FOTR, after the wonderful Shire scenes, feel to me like a rollercoaster ride from point A to B to C. TTT is bloated with battles, but includes some pretty sketchy characterization, particularly for Theoden, etc.

I think six films would have given PJ a lot more time to make better, tighter and LESS bloated films. Ones whose dramatic turns would flow more organically.

One can always hope for a remake!


Hanzkaz
Rohan

Aug 9 2012, 7:01pm

Post #21 of 28 (455 views)
Shortcut
For Films 3 and 4 (ROTK Parts 1 and 2) , I'd show the 'Bigger Picture'. - [In reply to] Can't Post

 Film 3 ends when Gondor is saved. There will also be scenes showing what's going on in other parts of Middle-Earth (basically reintroducing Erebor and Dale, and current events in Lorien, Rivendell etc) and hints of Sauron's bigger plan..


In Film 4, I'd show Lorien, Erebor, etc being attacked and how the good guys there deal with it .

Then we switch to Gondor, where eventually Aragorn and Co. come up with their plan to distract Sauron.

In other words, we have parallel 'Gondor', 'Frodo' and 'War in the North' threads culminating in the fall of Sauron..

(If the Hobbit Trilogy version of the Battle of Dol Guldur ends with the total destruction of the Necromancer's fortress, I wouldn't bother with a second Battle of Dol Guldur in Film 4. It would be more of a case of the various besieged good forces gaining hope and renewed strength from the Dark Lord's fall. )


(This post was edited by Hanzkaz on Aug 9 2012, 7:04pm)


Plurmo
Rohan

Aug 10 2012, 6:23pm

Post #22 of 28 (381 views)
Shortcut
I think you're spot on regarding the improbability [In reply to] Can't Post

of those films being made as good as they were without those particular producers, filmmakers and the overall newzealanders' embrace of them. One can only shudder at the thought of a LOTR movie being made by the hollywoodian orcs.

However, I think there is more to the book's begining that you seem to give credit for. In the movie the only real danger the hobbits face till they reach the Pass of Caradhras comes from the Nazgul. In the book there is a whole series of rites of passage for them. Before they cross the High Hay at Buckland they are in a bucolic friendlier world (there are Nazgul, though). After that they are at the mercy of strange forces of nature under the sway of the Withywindle and the weight of the history and phantasmagoria of Middle-earth in the Barrow-downs. Perhaps you think that uninteresting, but I think a filmmaker with less haste could turn that into a wonderful cinematic experience.

It was a choice of haste, turning the whole masked conspiracy into a casual bumping (along with cabbages and carrots) on the road. It diminished the hobbit's real characteristics of intelligence, absurdity, courage and friendship.
But to think any hollywood creature could deliver movies as good as the newzealanders did is jarjarbonkers allright.


HiddenSpring
Lorien

Aug 12 2012, 2:39am

Post #23 of 28 (356 views)
Shortcut
I wouldn't [In reply to] Can't Post

The last film, Return of the King, is too long as it is in its theatrical form (let's not get into the artless extended edition.)

This whole trend of dividing things into two and three and six is more than a little unnerving. Most things in a novel dont need to be visualized. An 18 hour version of The Lord of the Rings would be excruciating in its faithfulness, and thus pointless.

I think every problem with The Two Towers and The Return of the King could easily have been solved by dedicating less time to the battles and the ageing CGI and investing more in character development. Overblown sentimentality was also a problem in the last two films but that has nothing to do with running time. In other words, If I were the director, Id cut some things out and add others, but the number of films is a perfect 3.

Same reason why The Hobbit in 3 films is absolutely ridiculous but I would have been fine with 2 given the added material.


stoutfiles
Rohan

Aug 15 2012, 2:32pm

Post #24 of 28 (320 views)
Shortcut
It's better portrayed in a mini series [In reply to] Can't Post

Four films, six films, you're still going to have problems. Four films would have pacing problems. Six films and you stretch content too thin, there just isn't enough there to hold the casual audience's attention and warrant the money for a movie ticket.

The story has an odd pacing that works well for a book, but not for multiple movies. However, if you made it into a miniseries...with as many episodes as it takes to cover all the material, then it fixes that problem. If we're ever to get a fully accurate remake of LOTR, a miniseries is the only way to go.


Unspoken_Request
Bree

Aug 16 2012, 4:51pm

Post #25 of 28 (302 views)
Shortcut
Agree and disagree [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree that a miniseries would work better than films. Looking at what they're doing with Game of Thrones, I'm a bit jealous that I will never get to see that treatment for the LOTR. I know there would probably never have been a Game of Thrones series without the LOTR movie's success. Still, on rare occasions, I wish that the movies had not already been made, so that they could be done into a high-quality three-season serie (4 or 5 season if you add the Hobbit).

That way, we, fans of the books, could almost have had it all. Bombadil, the old forest, Hobbits defending themselves against the Nazgul, Gandalf fighting on Weathertop, Radagast, the wolf attack before Moria, etc . There could even have been one final episode AFTER the ring is destroyed to deal with all the loose ends and a bit of scouring of the shire.

On the other hand, I disagree about 4 or 6 films having pacing problems or stretching things too thin. ROTK already has pacing problems and TTT and ROTK area already too condensed as is.

Once you forget the movie and return to the book, it becomes pretty clear that there are plenty of options to do it differently. You really have to think outside of the boxes created by the films though.

To me 4 films would really not be too hard. As others have said, showing the Corsair and Pelargir stuff for Aragorn would really have helped Aragorn's arc, + adding Ghan Buri Ghan, extending Mordor difficulties for Frodo and Sam and dweling a bit more into Minas Tirith's politics + the fight for Osgiliath could have done it without having the ring.; Finding a proper ending for ROTK part 1 is not as hard as it seemed. We have to remember that the TTT movie's ending was totally manufactured by PJ & co. In the book, there are no clear cinematic ending.

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.