|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Aug 6 2014, 7:45pm
Post #1 of 12
(846 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Could LOTR have been adapted into more than three films sucessfully?
|
Can't Post
|
|
This is a big of a "what if" question obviously as with Jacksons films I'm guessing to go beyond a trilogy would have ment giving up filming everything back to back but still just hypothetically(or for some future adaptation) I find it interesting to consider whether LOTR could be extended beyond a trilogy.
At the most basic level I spose you could say each of the 6 sub books could make one film but for Jacksons style blockbusters especially I have serious doubts the narrative could be spilt into two films as it is on the page whilst ROTK represents serious dramatic problems if spilt that way.
What I can see more easily is FOTR spilt into two separate films roughly along the lines of the books(maybe with some Rivendell celebration at the end of the first). Indeed I think the second film would be very easy to visualise as an extended version of what we got in the second half of FOTR with more detail added to Moria and Lorien and perhaps the Orc chase into Lorien actually shown.
The first film would likely change more but there is a wealth of material there with which to extend it. The most obvious area of course is the Old Forrest/Tom/Barrows section although I think also the most contentious since even without being pushed for screentime a lot of the same arguments for cutting it that we got for a one film FOTR would hold(distracts from the Nazgul chase? is Tom filmable? are the barrows too similar to the Nazgul? too much "magic" too soon?). Even besides that though I think theres still a lot of room to extend the film, Merry and Pippin could be fleshed out as characters earlier and I think the Nazgul chase itself could withstand more screen time both in the shire and in the wilds. If the film showed Gandalfs situation as we saw there also of coruse the potential for his confrontation with the Nazgul to be included and if your looking for a suitable dramatic ending I think Frodo facing the Nazgul alone at the ford, withstanding their influence and then Gandalf(and maybe Elrond?) being present to bring down the flood.
ROTK spilt along rather different lines to the books might I spose be possible. The first half isn't even that hard to imagine I'd say potentially ending with Pelennor and Shelob, the second half is somewhat harder. Could you fill much of the film with a section Jackson gave about 10-15 mins post pelennor pre black gate/mt doom? The material is there I spose with Cirith Ungol but on the Gondor side of the story I feel a bit more material might need to be invented, maybe with Aragorn having more trouble rousing his forces and perhaps some confrontations on route? battle(destruction of?) Minas Morgul?
The other question is whether with a shorter final film the Scouring could potentially be included, you would have the problem that the audience wouldn't have seen the shire for a LONG time by that point but I do think its possible in some form, at least Saruman meeting his fate.
(This post was edited by moreorless on Aug 6 2014, 7:50pm)
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Aug 6 2014, 9:25pm
Post #2 of 12
(629 views)
Shortcut
|
Six films might had been a bit much, but I could see the trilogy condensed into four movies instead of three. I'm not sure exactly how I would break it down, but I would might have ended the first film with the escape from Moria.
'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring
|
|
|
breezin
The Shire
Aug 9 2014, 4:42am
Post #3 of 12
(582 views)
Shortcut
|
"The Hunger Games," "Twilight" and "Harry Potter" all turned the final book into two films. Similarly, I think that "Return of the King" could have been split into two films. The first film could have focused on the Battle of Pelennor Fields, while the second would have the Battle of Morannon. The Scouring of the Shire would offer some action at the end too. The split would have allowed some more character interaction in "Return of the King" besides wrapping the story arcs. I'm not fully familiar with the timeline of the events, but the battles in "Return of the King" seemed like they immediately followed each other. I don't think they were written that way.
I know that many fans would happily spend 6 hours with the film of every book, but I don't think there would have been enough action in "Fellowship of the Ring" and "The Two Towers" to be extended across 2 movies each. Maybe this sounds like I have a short attention span or that I'm only interested in action. The truth is that I'd happily watch as much as they choose to film. I'd just be less interested in repeat viewings if it took any longer for the fellowship to get from the Shire to Rivendell, or for the company to get from Edoras to Helm's Deep. One of the fundamental rules of film making is "Show, don't tell." I don't think there's much left to "show" from the first two books.
Just my two cents. Good question though.
|
|
|
squire
Half-elven
Aug 9 2014, 7:47pm
Post #4 of 12
(563 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yes, except for the 'successfully' part
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As you noted, filming the latter three-fourths of Book 6 is dramatically difficult, as most of the book is a winding-down of story threads and conflicts that were presented in the first 5 books. But the first third of Book 1 presents a similar problem, for the same underlying reason.
These peaceful, almost contemplative 'bookend' chapters only work in the epic as a whole because Tolkien is at least as interested in exploring the nature and fate of his imaginary world and its peoples, as he is in the actual mechanics of their rescue from Sauron via the Ring plot and the Aragorn plot. The action scenes themselves occupy Tolkien's attention the least, and their absence in Book 6 is hardly unique; most of the other books also have remarkably little action in them, at least in terms that an action-film director or audience would recognize.
Take as an example of the above set of priorities, your comments about how Book 1 should be expanded "obviously" with the moderately exciting episodes of the Old Forest through the Barrows. Yet the entire Scouring sequence and even the departure of Frodo in lieu of Sam, as seen in Book 6, depends instead on the first four or five chapters of Book 1, in which the readers are expected to develop a love for the Shire and its people that is deeper than mere amusement at the quaint and silly caperings of Bilbo's party.
That all the hobbits, not just our four heroes, are real folk with both good and bad qualities is the point of the first third of Book 1, including the gossips of the Inn, Ted Sandyman's disbelief in magic, Frodo's regret at leaving Bag End, the hobbits' love of walking, Farmer Maggot's wisdom and courage, the folkways of Buckland and the homey but juvenile comforts of the house at Crickhollow. An entire film devoted to Book 1 should - but I admit, probably would not - devote at least half of its runtime to this study of rustic character and folkways. Without it the only slightly more action-filled Scouring in Book 6 would hardly be worth the time it rates at the other end of the story.
It would take bold producers indeed to actually film The Lord of the Rings as it was written, which a six-film series would certainly allow them to do!
squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd & 4th TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion and NOW the 1st BotR Discussion too! and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary
 = Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.
|
|
|
DaughterofLaketown
Gondor
Aug 9 2014, 8:24pm
Post #5 of 12
(543 views)
Shortcut
|
That return of the king is not two movies is my one disappointment for these films.
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Aug 10 2014, 6:34am
Post #6 of 12
(556 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Alot of points I'd agree with..
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As you noted, filming the latter three-fourths of Book 6 is dramatically difficult, as most of the book is a winding-down of story threads and conflicts that were presented in the first 5 books. But the first third of Book 1 presents a similar problem, for the same underlying reason.
These peaceful, almost contemplative 'bookend' chapters only work in the epic as a whole because Tolkien is at least as interested in exploring the nature and fate of his imaginary world and its peoples, as he is in the actual mechanics of their rescue from Sauron via the Ring plot and the Aragorn plot. The action scenes themselves occupy Tolkien's attention the least, and their absence in Book 6 is hardly unique; most of the other books also have remarkably little action in them, at least in terms that an action-film director or audience would recognize.
Take as an example of the above set of priorities, your comments about how Book 1 should be expanded "obviously" with the moderately exciting episodes of the Old Forest through the Barrows. Yet the entire Scouring sequence and even the departure of Frodo in lieu of Sam, as seen in Book 6, depends instead on the first four or five chapters of Book 1, in which the readers are expected to develop a love for the Shire and its people that is deeper than mere amusement at the quaint and silly caperings of Bilbo's party.
That all the hobbits, not just our four heroes, are real folk with both good and bad qualities is the point of the first third of Book 1, including the gossips of the Inn, Ted Sandyman's disbelief in magic, Frodo's regret at leaving Bag End, the hobbits' love of walking, Farmer Maggot's wisdom and courage, the folkways of Buckland and the homey but juvenile comforts of the house at Crickhollow. An entire film devoted to Book 1 should - but I admit, probably would not - devote at least half of its runtime to this study of rustic character and folkways. Without it the only slightly more action-filled Scouring in Book 6 would hardly be worth the time it rates at the other end of the story.
It would take bold producers indeed to actually film The Lord of the Rings as it was written, which a six-film series would certainly allow them to do!
I'd agree with a lot of that, when I say the Old Forrest/Tom/Barrow was "obviously" an area that could be expanded I mean so in terms of the amount of content that wasn't in Jacksons film not that its obviously content that would work onscreen. I would say though that the barrows especially is very cinematic,one of the most vivid and atmospheric sections of the books for me, its more a question of how it would tie into the rest of the film.
I'd agree with your point about the Scouring(and indeed made similar points when ROTK was released sans scouring) that the groundwork needs to be layed not just to the main characters and the shire as a nice homely location but as a place of depth and complexity. As I said as well I think that in a film medium you have the added weakness that this setup would be at least two(and likely 3-4 with enough time to include it) films beforehand released years apart. What I would relate it to is the Aragorn/Arwen romance that needed to be reaffirmed during TTT and the start of ROTK
What I'm not sure I'd really agree on is that book 1(that is the FOTR sub book) was really "peaceful". Less action packed than what followed perhaps but I do think the Nazgul chase was great slow building drama. As I said as well I personally think the film could have made more use of this aspect and that it could likely have sustained an entire film.
I'd argue that even in the book a lot of the success of the extended shire section is sustained by the gradually increasing threat of the Nazgul. On screen they really become a serious threat almost instantly but I do think that they could be built up a little more as a background to not just more depth to the shire(and Bree) but perhaps more importantly more depth to the Hobbits besides Frodo.
As you move beyond Bree I also think theres a lot of room to extend that aspect of the story, especially if Gandalfs story is told in something close to real time. I can imagine for example Gandalf at Weathtop being a very dramtic scene, maybe with the Nazgul closing in before we suddenly cut away to The Hobbits and Aragorn miles away seeing the flashes of lighting not knowing the result ourselves.
Once Frodo has been stabbed I think his "fading" into the shadow world could make for very effective cinema as well. One description that always sticks with me for its creepiness is Frodo's dream of Bagend with the Nazgul looking over the hedge. This whole section could IMHO be made into more of a personal conflict for Frodo, the idea that the Nazgul are testing his will.
The climax at the Ford would I'd say likely need to be closer to the page in some respects but further on others. I think that if the real focus of the story is Frodo's mental battle with the Nazgul then he needs to be alone on the horse. I'd say though that his defiance of them may need to be played up a bit giving the viewer the impression on screen that it was great enough to significantly effect the outcome. Equally I think Gandalf would need to be present(maybe Elrond as well) and one or both of them call down the flood more actively in the way Arwen did.
(This post was edited by moreorless on Aug 10 2014, 6:37am)
|
|
|
IdrilLalaith
Rivendell
Aug 10 2014, 5:23pm
Post #7 of 12
(527 views)
Shortcut
|
Is it possible? Yes, certainly.
Would it be financially successful? That's debatable. Some of Tolkien's critics complained about there being too much Hobbit stuff in the books and I'm sure some moviegoers would stay the same. (One of my co-workers greatly enjoys the LotR films but he says The Hobbit films are too long.)
Because the financial success isn't certain, I think it would be a tough sell to studios/producers.
Realistically, I think the only way the books would be turned into six films is if a lot was added and things in the book still left out. (Similar to DoS, but I won't get into that here.)
TolkienBlog.com
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Aug 11 2014, 4:00pm
Post #8 of 12
(513 views)
Shortcut
|
|
More Tolkien, but also more Jackson
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Bob Shaye was looking for a new film franchise for New Line ("The Studio That Freddie Built") when Jackson brought him the pitch for a two-film LOTR. According to Mark Ordesky, after Jackson’s presentation Shaye's first words were: ‘Well wait a minute, there’s three books, why are you proposing making two films? Shouldn’t you be making three films of three books?" I often wonder what would have happened if someone would have pointed out "There are three volumes, but there are actually six books." I don't see how Shaye could have resisted.
That said, keep in mind how the three films we got altered the book and even added new stuff in order to follow Screenwriting 101. So with a six film LOTR, Bombadil, like Faramir, would become an obstacle. There will be additional battles like the wolf fight in Hollin, and the orc fight on the Anduin, each with a Lurtz-like hero wolf (werewolf?), orc (Olog-hai?), etc added to give a dramatic face to the enemy. Expect Arwen to be given even more non-book stuff to do so as to keep reminding the audience that Aragorn still has a girlfriend. And like the addition of Elves at Helm’s Deep, one might expect Dwarves, Elves, and /or Ents to show up to help the hobbits in the Scouring of the Shire to punch up the action for the climax. (Xena-Rosie?) And keep in mind the grueling one-release-a-year schedule sometimes produced some rushed decisions like the hyena wargs in TTT, so imagine how the cgi might look in the sixth film if done by an exhausted Jacson/WETA . And several actors that Jackson originally wanted turned down the roles because of the 15 month schedule so one wonders how many of the wonderful actors we did get might have balked at a schedule twice that long. And finally, if Jackson had spent six years of his life on LOTR I strongly suspect there would have been no way he'd taken on directing The Hobbit.
Also what squire said.
TL;DR: Keep in mind the law of diminishing returns.
******************************************
"The internet is swarming with the ghosts,
Of my thankfully reconsidered posts."
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Aug 11 2014, 5:53pm
Post #9 of 12
(517 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm not sure, Darkstone, that Bombadil, himself, would become an obstacle so much as the Old Forest could be seen as an adversary in its own right. In this version we would probably still get to see the Hobbits encounter the Wight on the Barrow-downs and the Wight still needs to be defeated somehow. I would rather have Old Tom aid Frodo and his companions than include an alternate introduction for Aragorn where Strider shows up on the Downs.
On the other hand, Tom could consider keeping the Ring as a gift for his Goldberry, forcing Frodo to convince him that it has to be taken to Rivendell.
'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Aug 19 2014, 9:37pm
Post #10 of 12
(453 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Obstacle more in writting terms
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'm not sure, Darkstone, that Bombadil, himself, would become an obstacle so much as the Old Forest could be seen as an adversary in its own right. In this version we would probably still get to see the Hobbits encounter the Wight on the Barrow-downs and the Wight still needs to be defeated somehow. I would rather have Old Tom aid Frodo and his companions than include an alternate introduction for Aragorn where Strider shows up on the Downs.
On the other hand, Tom could consider keeping the Ring as a gift for his Goldberry, forcing Frodo to convince him that it has to be taken to Rivendell.
I suspect what he means is that Bombadil may become an " obstacle" in screen writing terms rather than an actual enemy. The character does afterall clearly have the potential to come across as overly foolish, to bring the more serious edge to the fore would have to be done very subltey.
Honestly though you probably could remove Tom and still keep the Old Forrest and/or the Barrow downs, just have the Hobbits themselves get out of trouble, with the barrows especially I think its easy to see Frodo attacking the Wight as the drive for an escape.
The bigger problem for me would be how does the section fit into the rest of the story? On the page I'd argue it works because the Hobbits escaping across the Brandywine is the end to an extended chase that lasts some time. Dropping the Nazgul at that point doesn't feel like a distraction because we've already had something of a conclusion with the Hobbits "winning". What we got onscreen was really only a very short chase before the Brandywine that is more building to Bree and afterwards, you don't want a break in the middle of that.
A version of FOTR spilt would likely allow for more time with the Nazgul chase in the shire but would it be enough to build the Brandywine into a mini conclusion?
Ontop of that I think there also the question of whether this section shows too much. Jackson really looked to play up the idea of a seemingly "normal" landscape with magical themes slowly building. Its in the wilds of Eredor that we start to get a sense of the deeper history and magic of middle earth coming to the fore.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Aug 20 2014, 12:34am
Post #11 of 12
(459 views)
Shortcut
|
|
No. I think I got Darkstone's meaning
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I suspect what he means is that Bombadil may become an " obstacle" in screen writing terms rather than an actual enemy. The character does afterall clearly have the potential to come across as overly foolish, to bring the more serious edge to the fore would have to be done very subltey.
No, Darkstone was discussing Bombadil's role within the narrative. This is what he wrote:
That said, keep in mind how the three films we got altered the book and even added new stuff in order to follow Screenwriting 101. So with a six film LOTR, Bombadil, like Faramir, would become an obstacle.
Without Old Tom, I think that the Hobbits would still need to be rescued from the Barrow-wight. This early in the story, they should still be shown to be 'way over their heads. But in a six-film struction there is little reason to leave Bombadil out. Instead, Merry and Pippin (and maybe Sam) might think that the Ring should be left with Tom, while Frodo might have a moment of foresight that tells him that Bombadil would not be an adequate guardian and the Ring must go to Rivendell.
'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring
|
|
|
Radagast_the_Brown
Rivendell
Oct 26 2014, 7:28am
Post #12 of 12
(487 views)
Shortcut
|
though I can't see any way it could have worked as a six film structure "as written". Every one of those films needs to have its own unique dramatic arc to work on its own merits upon release. TTT already ran into problems in this area in a 3 film structure. 6 films would have meant MORE deviation from the source as it would have required a ton of invention to give structure, peaks and valleys etc to each film. Beyond that there's unfair demands put upon a non-initiated audience to remain invested for SIX YEARS in one story, and remember details from say the first film that might not become relevant till the 5th or 6th. I can see it work as a decently budgeted mini-series, something like GoT, but not as cinema.
That said I feel pretty confident in saying if the trilogy was made today in the current climate ROTK would have been split into two films ala every other popular franchise capper. And I wouldn't necessarily have been opposed to that. With the restructuring of TTT a whole lot of that book was shifted into ROTK which already has a lot of story to tell. The result is a very rushed feeling film. Even in the EE all the elements that were cut out (Houses of Healing, Mouth of Sauron, Voice of Saruman etc) all feel like half-baked fan service. Now given two films to work with and you can have a proper send off for Saruman, a longer sense of respite after the Battle of Pelennor allowing for a proper Houses of Healing and Last Debate and another steady build up to the Black Gate Opens, a stronger sense of the struggle to Frodo and Sam's traverse of Mordor instead of the brief montage we get, more time to characterise Denethor properly and more time to establish the people of Gondor who are mostly faceless as is. Most of all Jackson and co. could have come up with a more satisfying way of handling the Paths of the Dead/Corsairs. Like including the Grey Company and having him lead them to free the people of Pelargir and rise up to over throw the Corsairs and ride their ships into battle, something that makes Aragorn earn his stripes as King and doesn't cheapen the outcome of the battle. Obvious breaking point is the dual Shelob/Pelennor climax.
All you have to decide, is what to do with the time that is given to you...
|
|
|
|
|
