Six movies better than 3?

[Mad Adski]

Okay, I posted this way back in January, but I'm sure a lot of posters weren't around then, so it seems viable to reopen this.

Do you think PJ would have created a better adaptation of LotR, if he had made six films, each corresponding to the six books which make up LotR. With this, there would be no need for cutting scenes and each film could come in at less than two hours, which is a little more box office friendly than the three hour editions.

I don't personally think this would work, but I would like the views of other Tolkien fans on this issue.

[Talimon]

First of all, if each of them came in under 2 hours you wouldn't have much more footage then you are getting now. They'd need to be more like a solid 2+ hours each. Secondly, I think it would end up rather boring. I mean, book 1 doesn't really stand on its own for 2 1/2 hours, at least for non fans. I still say that the ideal length for each of the 3 movies is 3 1/2 to 4 hours. As many have pointed out, the fact that a lot of material wasn't present has more to do with the director and editors creative choices rather then with time constraints. Content wise I think FotR is the most intesive, and so ideally I'd give it 4 hours. But TTT can be done in 3 hours easily, and RotK probably in less.

[ReadWryt]

As much as I do love Tolkien, I don't think that the idea of selling these books as 6 instead of 3 would have been a good idea. Bless his soul he meant well when he wanted that, but book one does not have a discreet Middle or End as defined in literary sensability. This is true of others as well, they DO work as three though because this Beggining, Middle (Conflict) and End (Resolution) applies, as would be needed for movies as well...

[Mad Adski]

Yes, what you've said are pretty much the reasons why I don't think it would work - for example the fourth movie would feature only Sam and Frodo, completely ignoring the other characters, which I'm sure would confuse an audience not so familiar with Tolkien.

However, concerning time constraints, no producer would ever allow a four-hour mainstream movie. Martin Scorsese(sp) has been forced to cut huge chunks of his Gangs of New York, which came in at roughly three and a half hours. Unfortunately, Hollywood bosses are not very sympathetic towards movies of such length and I know that the bosses at New Line were not happy about FotR coming in at nearly three hours to start with. In some places I think PJ is needlessly altering parts of the plot, but you have to remember all directors are under intense pressure from studios to produce hits and to the bosses at New Line, the dollar is the primary concern, not the integrity of Tolkien's story. Sad but true.

[aragil]

To New Line's credit, they told PJ to make it in three when he was only asking for money for two films. Also, from what I've heard PJ provided a ~two hour, a ~three hour, and a ~four hour cut of Fellowship. The studio was only contractually obligated to put up the two hour cut, but they decided to go with the three hour theatrical release anyway. Of course, a perfect (i.e. fairy-tale) studio would have taken the four hour cut, but I'd say that as far as studios go, NLC was more willing to take risks then most.

[ReadWryt]

In some places I think PJ is needlessly altering parts of the plot, but you have to remember all directors are under intense pressure from studios to produce hits and to the bosses at New Line, the dollar is the primary concern, not the integrity of Tolkien's story. Sad but true.

Wait, you mean that it's sad but true that New Line, as a corperation and a business, has it's eye on the bottom line and not on paying directors to make movies whos length would be daunting to most movie goers soas to risk loosing money in the long run...or sad but true that the Integrity of Tolkien's works are secondary to that? Or both??

The same argument could be made for the "Simarillion". It originally was PART of The Lord of the Rings but the publisher wisely decided not to include it because it would have bulked out the book to a point that would have reduced the sales of the thing, and so the Appendacies were born as a compromise. Anyone who has read the early drafts of the Silmarillion should bow down and thank Allen & Unwin for the wise decision they made in saving both books from a fiscal and artistic disaster.

New Line is not a 501c3 Non-Profit organization, and I doubt that any cherity could afford to shell out $300 million for three movies to be made no matter what length they would eventually come in at. The very same complaint about New Line's tight controll over the length of the movie for their profit is the reason they could hand over such a sum for production in the first place...I think that what this incident will do though is create a whole new catagory of production budget negotiation in which there will be dialog about how long Special Edition DVDs can be on release as compared to Theatrical Exibition. In the future we will most likely hear that a director who wanted to make a 5 hour movie will be able to do so only if they can reduce it's length to 3 in a salable manner and then the full film will be released on DVD for the die hard fan market...

[Nenya Evenstar]

I think three movies is the best way to go. Imagine the confusion of audiences after the Fellowship is split up? In TFOR the Fellowship is all together, then in TTT Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli are in one place in book one, and Frodo and Sam are in a totally different place in book two. ROTK is the same story. It would be very confusing for audiences to go to the theatre one year and see Aragorn and CO's story, and then have to wait a year to see what is happening to Frodo and Sam at the very same time. I think they'd probably be very confused about what happens when and about what happens at the same time.

[Mad Adski]

Originally posted by ReadWryt


Wait, you mean that it's sad but true that New Line, as a corperation and a business, has it's eye on the bottom line and not on paying directors to make movies whos length would be daunting to most movie goers soas to risk loosing money in the long run...or sad but true that the Integrity of Tolkien's works are secondary to that? Or both??



In answer to your question I would say both. Also it is an interesting argument about special edition DVD's - something which I had not thought about and it would be nice to see some much expanded versions of films, that directors wanted to produce.

[Darth Saruman]

I'm not sure that 6 movies would be possible.

Split FOTR into two movies and you aren't left with suitable climax for the first movie. Tom Bombadil would have to be in there, but you would probably have to end the first movie at Rivendell and that just wouldn't work.

For TTT it could conceivably be split into two if you had the Helm's Deep/Ents movie first, then you did a separate movie with Sam and Frodo. But, no matter how great they are, those two hobbits could not carry their own motion picture.

For ROTK, it would be interesting if the first movie ended right after Pellenor and the second dealt with the march on Mordor and the destruction of the ring. Then the Scouring probably would have been put in there. Not sure how well that would really turn out though.

[Ingwë]

As far as I know Peter Jackson was told to make 1 movie ''THe Lord of the Rings'' but later he got money for 3 :) Can you imagine only one movie? It you be horrible! They would cut out more that 50% of the story.
I don't think that six movies would be better than 3 though originally the book are 6. But if Peter Jackson had decided to make six movies I guess we would have watched the last one in 2005 or worse: 2006 :D

[Barliman Butterbur]

Do you think PJ would have created a better adaptation of LotR, if he had made six films, each corresponding to the six books which make up LotR.

Well, my ideal solution is this: a television series in high definition on PBS with no commercial interruptions. Each show an hour an a half. Everything done in computer animation!

That way we completely sidestep the issue of actors aging (voices do not age as fast as faces), and with CGA, there is quite literally nothing that could not be done. There would be as many episodes as it would take to do everything and stay faithful to the book, and leave out all director's "improvements." Tolkien doesn't need to be "improved."

I have spoke me piece!

Barley

[Hammersmith]

But Barley, with the length one would have to go into in order to cover everything, surely some episodes would be abysmally dry while others would feel too packed out? I've seen book-to-film translations where they attempt to preserve the minutae and it's not pretty. Things that work in books don't always work on the big screen. Also, how would PBS afford such a production?

[Wonko The Sane]

But Barley, with the length one would have to go into in order to cover everything, surely some episodes would be abysmally dry while others would feel too packed out? I've seen book-to-film translations where they attempt to preserve the minutae and it's not pretty. Things that work in books don't always work on the big screen. Also, how would PBS afford such a production?

It's true that things that work in books don't always work on screen, and they weren't completely wrong when they said this movie couldn't be made.
Obviously it has been made, but it was difficult, and to create a movie that stayed as true to the book as Barley wants WOULD have been impossible. (Well, they could do it, but it wouldn't be good....)

Second of all, while computer animation can be made very realistic (Legolas's arrows, the cave troll, etc.) it's also much more difficult to create a very realistic movie from scratch than it is to add realisitc elements to a real-life film.

And Hammersmith, PBS could afford it through the support of viewers like you. ;)
Or, failing at that, an outside company could take over the production, and PBS could air it. But it's not a great idea...at least in my opinion.