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 Hobbit:
New Martin Freeman Interview
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All

N.E. Brigand
Half-elven


Nov 14 2010, 6:52pm

Post #76 of 82 (1263 views)
Shortcut
Three volumes, six books, sixty-two chapters. [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
Preservation of splits, huh? Sure, why not?! Though I'm surprised Tolkien was interested in that considering he didn't want his story even split into three books. I guess he came to embrace the idea of six chapters.


The Lord of the Rings is one story in six parts, each between nine and twelve chapters in length. This is how Tolkien himself wrote it, and he was calling these six parts "books" before he even finished the story (though for a few years, he didn't know how many there would be). His publisher felt it would be necessary to divide the story into three "volumes" for printing, and so books I and II were published as The Fellowship of the Ring, books III and IV were published as The Two Towers, and books V and VI (plus appendices) were published as The Return of the King. When discussing a possible film adapation of LOTR in the 1950s, Tolkien argued that it would be better to keep his book structure in the movie, which to be a single film covering all three volumes, and not cut back and forth between the action in different books, but keep them separate. So for a three-hour movie, imagine six 30-minute sequences, one for each book.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Discuss Tolkien’s life and works in the Reading Room!
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.


thesithempire
Rivendell

Nov 14 2010, 7:04pm

Post #77 of 82 (1211 views)
Shortcut
How about six three hour adaptations instead? [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks for the clarification N.E. Brigand.

Since we know Jackson has a ton of additional footage not put into the EE's, I'd suggest restoring the book's structure, and doing six three-hour adaptations for TV. Of if that's too long per episode (which it probably is), then doubling the number of episodes: twelve 1.5 hour episodes.

However it's done, it would draw huge numbers from old and new fans (especially if it was made clear that there would be a lot of new scenes, and that the films were re-edited), and give a reason for a new DVD/blu-ray box set.


shadowdog
Rohan

Nov 14 2010, 9:28pm

Post #78 of 82 (1243 views)
Shortcut
I agree with [In reply to] Can't Post

what Peter Jackson did in the films. Shilob did not occur timewise where it occured in the books and Tolkien did not divide the books into 3 separate books, the editor did. Where Peter put Shilob is where it occured on the parallel time line in the actual story as laid out by Tolkien.


Flagg
Tol Eressea


Nov 14 2010, 9:55pm

Post #79 of 82 (1237 views)
Shortcut
Incidentally, [In reply to] Can't Post

in one of the extended edition commentaries, Peter Jackson actually suggested that they could do an alternative edit of the films, in chronological order, and release it as a DVD boxset. He didn't seem to serious about it though, just mentioning it as an interesting possibility. He said, as an example, that the scene between Boromir, Faramir and Denethor would actually become an important plot point in this version, rather than just being a character development flashback.

I love the idea of any sort of alternative, re-edited version of the trilogy being released – as much as I enjoy all the films, there is plenty of room for improvement. But is there really enough unreleased footage to bring the running time up to eighteen hours? I know there are quite a few scenes that were cut – Fatty Bolger's run-in with the Ringwraiths, XenArwen's participation in the Battle of Helm's Deep and Gimli and Legolas's epilogue all spring to mind – but I never got the impression that Jackson films anywhere near six hours of deleted scenes.

I keep remembering things that I should have mentioned in my previous posts: Another reason I disliked the pushing-forward of the Shelob scenes into RotK is that it spread Gollum's scenes throughout both TTT and RotK, whereas Gollum's appearance in the RotK book was little more than a cameo. Had more of Gollum's scenes been kept in TTT, they, along with the Shelob scenes, would have provided a much better incentive for me to rewatch the film. It would have made TTT into the film people regard as 'the one with Gollum'. I haven't watched TTT nearly as many times as I have the other two, because most of its unique and enjoyable parts are concentrated or superceded in RotK. Though I think FotR may be favourite of the three – it is quite a magical piece of film.


thesithempire
Rivendell

Nov 14 2010, 10:08pm

Post #80 of 82 (1280 views)
Shortcut
I think 18 hours was pushing it! [In reply to] Can't Post

Don't know where that arbitrary figure came from! But I bet there's a good two hours of unused footage that won't violate the book (e.g., we can't use Arwen's scenes at Helm's Deep, not that I would mind seeing them as "deleted scenes"). That brings us to a little under 14 hours, 1.5 hours per episode for six "chapters" (with 2 hours and 2 hours for the first and last episode).

Anyway, I'm probably boring everyone with my fantasy TV-miniseries edit. But yeah, any excuse for a new recut and new scenes would be fun.


Flagg
Tol Eressea


Nov 17 2010, 1:47pm

Post #81 of 82 (1273 views)
Shortcut
The Return of the King game... [In reply to] Can't Post

...also gave an interesting treatment to the King of the Dead. Aragorn has to battle him, of course – it's no fun watching characters try to persuade each other verbally in a game! The King of the Dead is not transparent here, and he does not glow green like the other Dead (though there is a kind of a dusty aura floating about him). He looks taller than he does in the film – about the size Sauron was in the FotR prologue. He seems much more like a corporeal undead warrior than an actual ghost, though he still glides rather than walking and passes through walls and statues and such. He never cackles, though he speaks plenty (he has more lines in the game than he does in the film).

Come to think of it, the Dead in general were given a pretty interesting treatment. The glowing green spirits seen flying about in the background are only vaguely human-shaped, but they dive into the bones scattered on the ground and reanimate them in the form of physical skeletal soldiers, with actual swords and shields and bows. This makes more sense to me than the idea of actual pure human spirits having much of an effect at the Battle of Pelennor Fields.


thesithempire
Rivendell

Nov 22 2010, 7:55pm

Post #82 of 82 (1210 views)
Shortcut
The Dead [In reply to] Can't Post

Yeah, I think what you're describing works better. Of all the translations from book to screen, PJ was least successful at adapting the Dead Men of Dunharrow (his Gothmog leaves much to be desired as well). For someone who loves horror, he utterly failed to convey any sense of that with them. A skeleton army would've been amazing. But even the ghost army he created would've been fine (minus the green) had he actually made them terrifying, which is how they're depicted in the book. The whole "scrubbing bubbles" (you'll have to be at least 30 and American to get that) imagery was just silly. Ah well.

I think the two upcoming Hobbit films are going to be amazing (there I go raising my expectations again!)

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 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.