Finding myself ridiculous

[Fimbrethil]

I'll tell you what feels weirdest about the release of the PJ filmes (I just typed files instead of films.......oh dear me...PJ Files, coming soon to a screen near you! ;) ). The weirdest thing about the release of the films is that I finally have to acknowledge the fact that LOTR is THREE books and not one.

I know tolkien always intended it to be just the one, but I still get confused every time some one says of FOTR movie - "It's an adaption of a five hundred page book!"

I always find myself thinking "Hang on, my copy of LOTR is 1069 pages, not including appendices."

Gawds I feel dumb sometimes :D

And on a final note

The inscription in the front of my copy of LOTR is


To Sarah

Happy Christmas 1993

Love from

Mum & Dad

Mum promised me she would buy me a new copy of LOTR every 10 years. YAY I get a new copy next year! My Dad used to yell at me for nicking his copy afore then. My first book was the entirety of LOTR at the tender age of 6. I never got near the hobbit till I was 8. Something wrong with that order there >_<


OH! I remember how I came to read LOTR as a 6 year old! I saw that awful Bakashi movie, and wanted to know what happened to Bill the pony when the rest of them fled into Moria. And then I was hooked :D

[Talimon]

OH! I remember how I came to read LOTR as a 6 year old! I saw that awful Bakashi movie, and wanted to know what happened to Bill the pony when the rest of them fled into Moria. And then I was hooked

Ah...days of innocence....what was I doing as a 6 year old...eating rocks, I suppose...

grumbles off

[Greymantle]

"The weirdest thing about the release of the films is that I finally have to acknowledge the fact that LOTR is THREE books and not one.

I know tolkien always intended it to be just the one, but I still get confused every time some one says of FOTR movie - "It's an adaption of a five hundred page book!" "

Why on earth should Mr. Jackson's choice compel you to revise your perception of Tolkien's work? The fact that the are a trilogy does not make the real LotR one. I, and a diminishing company of others, still maintain that LotR is a single novel, as intended by the author.

[kohaku]

The LOTR is certainly a single novel, because each of the separate "books" does not contain a complete story. They each pick up right where the last one left off as if it was just another chapter. In fact, I believe the movies are inteneded to form one single movie just like the book, so the cinema "trilogy" is really just one big movie.

[Greymantle]

There are so many different standards for these things. I generally call books and moview by what the artist wants them to be called; therefore, I call LotR a single novel, but Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials, which make up a single story, a trilogy, because that's what the author wants. Similarly, as little respect as I may have for Peter Jackson, I make the fair differentiation between his trilogy and Tolkien's single novel.

[PRH]

Originally posted by kohaku
In fact, I believe the movies are inteneded to form one single movie just like the book, so the cinema "trilogy" is really just one big movie.
I don't think this is the case. The movies will stand on their own much more than the 3 books do. Witness the transplant of Boromir's death from TTT to FOTR -- in order to make FOTR a more rounded movie that stands on it's own. Also, you'll see how much TTT gets "adapted" from it's book incarnation into a movie that will (or is supposed to) stand on it's own. This is a good thing from the viewpoint of satisfying casual movie-goers who have to wait a year between episodes who would otherwise be very disappointed with the lack of a sense of resolution (on some level)(I was surprised to hear as many complaints as I did about the lack of a resolution to FOTR given how well PJ made a decent conslusion out of it compared to the book -- must've been all folk who didn't know it was a 3-parter). This may be a bad thing if it bastardizes Tolkien too much.

[Greymantle]

That was the ONE SINGLE change of which I approved. It did not alter the story in the slightest; if anything, it kept more faithfully to Tolkien's original intent of a single novel.

[Fimbrethil]

*grin* I doubt it will ever change :) I've done it twice since I wrote that post, and looking at the 'contents' page of my copy of LOTR, I notice that he lays them out in six books.


Six 3 hours long movies....*drools* Oh well, we can but dream :D.


Hmmm, I can understand PJ moving Boromir's death into the first part, as I said, I dun really care which film it happened in, aslong as it happened in relative proper order for the rest of the story to proceed as I understand it too!

It kinda reminds you how early on a lot of the most famous sequences happen, Moria, Lothlorien....later on it becomes much less....um....separate, as you have the mixing of frodo and sams tale with the rest of the fellowships stories.

And there is so much more coming in the other movies :D


*Dances*

I apologise for this rather un-serious thread, I was just getting um...surprised at myself :D

[kohaku]

Well they have to make each movie stand on its own because they are not shown in the theaters all together, but I still believe they are intended to be one big movie. In fact I remember reading somewhere that PJ intended them to form one long movie. None of the three movies will contain a complete story, but they are produced in such a way that people can watch any one of them at any time.