How long will LOTR be? what would you like...

[Gollum]

I'd settle for a good 4 hours...it really can't be any longer... tho they'll probably make it three... thoughts?

[anduin]

Are you speaking of each indiviual movie to be four hours each? In an interview published at AICN, Peter Jackson states, "I imagine the films will have an approx 6 hour running time." I am assuming he means that each film will be two hours long. If anyone happened to miss the interview you can read it here: Page 1 of Q&A with PJ (http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/lordoftherings.html) Page 2 of Q&A with PJ (http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/lordoftherings2.html)

[Eruve]

I know what PJ said, but in the best of all possible worlds, they would be long enough to do the story it's proper justice.

[bmilder]

Yeah, I'd go for 2-3 hours per movie :)

[Fat middle]

PJ seems a bit lazy... Only 6 hours!!

[Darth Tater]

I'd like 36 hours personally, but I'll settle for about 6 total.

[Hernalt]

NewLine Cinema(?) may want to keep it within a target length to support a younger audience, so we might get what happened to TPM - perfectly better footage left on the cutting room floor in favor of what he thinks the kiddies might like. This doesn't mean he's Lucas, but he has people to answer to. AND this is in view of the fact that he actually Wants it to be a 'hard PG-13'. I'd figure 2:15 to 2:30 tops, but nothing epic - there's too many newcomers that won't appreciate the magnification.

[Elanor]

Yes, 2:30 would be good enough for me, but I wish it was longer!

[IronParrot]

Fellowship would have to be 3 hours, minimum - all the characters are introduced... all the themes are laid out. TT and RotK should be a minimum 2:30, but I wouldn't mind them being 3 hours as well. One problem is how Jackson is going to edit TT... since the story is parallel and all, and some events happen at the same time as events in RotK. That could dramatically increase or decrease the length, and do the inverse to RotK, I think. 4h each? Please, yes! But it won't happen...

[Darth Tater]

They're cutting so much out of fellowship it'll probably just make 2 hours. Sad.

[IronParrot]

Really? I thought it was just Bombadil who was a major cut. Besides, the thing is, Fellowship needs to introduce all the characters... the other two films don't. That alone should make it a minimum 3h, IMO. I would NOT settle for 2 hours.

[Michael Martinez]

Don't expect to see much of Bree in "Fellowship of the Ring". Frodo and his companions arrive there at night in the rain, meet Strider, and move on, according to what I've been told. We're not likely to be treated to the full council with Elrond, either. That would take up an immense amount of time. We'll be lucky to get 1-2 sentences from Legolas and Gloin about why they came. The first movie is expected BY SOME PEOPLE (not all) to end with the death of Boromir (which has already been filmed) or just the breaking of the fellowship (as in the book).

[Fat middle]

No Man in the Moon? :( Very disappointed. But, in the Jackson´s scripts for two movies there was and attack to the hobbits´ room at the Prancing Pony. Do you think that also has been cut?

[Darth Tater]

Bree isn't gonna be that bad, looks like there should be some good stuff in the Prancing Pony. Barrow Downs are cut, and yes, it's ending with Boromir's death. Lothlorien's gonna be really short.

[bmilder]

Well, it does have to end on a semi-dramatic note, even though it's just Part I. In the "Fellowship of the Ring" game from Interplay, you have to rescue Frodo from Dol Guldur to beat it :P

[Michael Martinez]

I've heard conflicting reports on whether the attack at Bree stays in. I would advise people to disregard whatever they've heard about the original two-part script. Although Jackson will undoubtedly keep as much material as he feels is useful, he was given a great opportunity to expand the story and reinsert many details he knows the fans would like (such as Lothlorien). I've deliberately tried NOT to find out plot details because I don't want the movies to be spoiled for me. But also, there are so many people poking and prying around that you can glean all sorts of weird spoilers from the Net. The things which I read that agree with what I heard through private sources are generally what I've said here. I'm trying to get fans to look at this as a Cinderella story. There have been many, many different variations on that tale (more than 500 according to the official Web site for "Ever After"), but people still recognize and appreciate the story for what it is: a timeless tale of love and poignant justice prevailing over selfishness and injustice. I think THE LORD OF THE RINGS will eventually develop that kind of staying power, and I hope there are many adaptations in the future.

[Hernalt]

The Cinderella permutation method is a difficult gospel to preach, but I think that after it's all said and done, there will be many people who actually prefer Jackson's 'take'. History meets Hollywood in plenty of well-known embellishments like Braveheart, Rob Roy, Joan of Arc and Last of the Mohicans. These compress intermission timeframes and market 'genre' expectations like x-amount of relationship/action/suspence/treachery. What we finally get is a very satisfactory product which meets the expectations of those not first acquainted with the real history, and who thereafter are delighted to get the real story/grisly details behind what they at first took to be real history. LOTR will not be so, because the "Real History" has preceded the modern interpretation, and we will all be armchair historians armed with 'facts' and 'I-was-there-experience'. But it doesn't need to be that way, and Jackson's impending permutation does not in any way cancel the vitality and immortality of the actual history. Just because this post-Bakshi endeavor will attract large numbers of new fans does Not mean that the core has fallen out of Tolkien, or that Tolkien has been betrayed. He's alive and well in Valinor, and probably laughing. A piece of Tolkien's own mind which bares on this is that he himself chose to view him work as 'interpretation' of lost lore. It little matters that he interpreted it out of his head -the 'fact' is that it was there, timeless, ageless, ancient. His translation effort was merely a permutation of "real" history. (I can comfortably fit the Lost Tales (BOLT) into the entire cosmology as being Another Perspective of Middle-Earth's "real history".) Consider how many permutations there are of the King Arthur/Merlin epic: Excalibur and Merlin (Sam Niel) might be different as day and night while using identical characters and situations. But the perspective and moral lessons are different, and the viewer wins both ways. I'm personally looking forward to a Jackson take which is different enough from the 'true' version that I'll walk away with more. If we're all blessed with long life, we'll see the next generations' version. (Maybe every 10-15 years or so?) All future progeny will be treated to Tolkien 'tales' which will vary from his original as much as our modern takes on Arthur and Merlin depart from Mallory's Morte D'Arthur. And it's all good.

[Fat middle]

Perhaps. I can see your point. I think it´s the same as in greek mythology. I´m not and expert but as i see, there was a myth in the collective consciousness, partially fixed by Homer. Over that myth the tragic athors often threw different versions. When i read Esquilo´s Agamemnon, i saw a noble character, a hero who must decide between his daughter´s life and his royal duties. When i read Euripides´ Electra i found a very different Agamemnon. He was no more a hero. He was only a jerk. Different views; no problem. But when i re-read Agamemnon i found a noble king, but with a marked tendency to be a little jerk. A richer view possibly. With Tolkien it will be the same. If i reread Sil. (surely i will), i´m sure i´ll find new elements in Hunthor´s death (you know why), and surely i´ll visualize Ainunlindale with some influences of Tater´s view, and perhaps some of you will see, from now on, Forlong the Fat with Porkin´s face. A richer view? It all depends of the worth of the influence. I confess guilty of, perhaps, having spoiled forever Forlong´s character :) . How will the next generations see LOTR? I think it all depends of the worth of Jackson´s view. If he erase Glorfindel the next generations may pass over him without noticing. They may found Arwen´s character a bit dull (not that i´m saying she was, but if you compare with Jackson´s plans...). Perhaps they will think that Gimli´s lines are funny (i have always seen him valiant, loyal and a bit grave, but the movie seems to want making a jester of him). Better? Worse? i don´t know, but i think that LOTR books never will be the same after the movies.

[Eruve]

I don't know, FM, that the movie will necessarily change people's reading of the books. I saw the Bakshi cartoon (I know, the horror) before I read LOTR. I do not think it should have been Legolas that helps Aragorn and the hobbits reach the Ford of Bruinen (to cite one example). I am able to keep the two as separate entities in my mind, and in the case of the cartoon, block it out, LOL!

[Hernalt]

Dwarves appeared in Time Bandits as the comic relief, feature as jesters of sorts in many medeival films, and are given by Tolkien a rustic, redneck feel in comparison to the racially pure ethnocentricity of Tolkien's WASP Elves. If none of you understand what I'm saying, then re-read the passages where Tolkien explains where all the races of mankind other than the Elf-friends come from - the East and South. Always remember and do not lose sight of the fact that Tolkien was a product of his WASP times. Hell, he doesn't even blink for the Irish of Scots!! (We know Scots need no introduction or validation, of course. ;) SO. Every movie needs comic relief, and the closest Jackson will get to it, without touching the 'main-character' nobility of the Hobbits, the gruesome horror of Gollum and the WASP elegance of Aragorn and Legolas, is to pick on who's left. Hopefully Gimli will have his shining moments. But be aware that Tolkien himself singled out Gimli as the foil (in comparison to the 'finer' characters) of hard headedness, ignorance, immaturity and ignobility. Tolkien was no saint, and his racial underpinnings are in there.

[Fat middle]

The movie´ll need a comic relif, but it could be achieved following the books way: sharing out the comic lines between different characters: Pippin, Merry, Sam, Barlyman, Treebeard... and also Gimli. Gimli has some funny lines in the books but he has also a number of the best treasures of LOTR, IMHO. Anyway, i admit it´d be a valid resource if Jackson decide to make a comic Gimli. No problem. My point was only that i think (in spite of Eruve´s comments) that a comic Gimli will change the way for aproaching to this character for new generations. Eruve: my personal experience about the cartoons. I have seen no Tolkien based cartoon. I havev read no Tolkien based comic. Not that i´m against them, but i haven´t had the chance (and i havent look for that chance). Well, to the point: past december 31 i saw 5 minutes of the cartoon at TV and i recall that Legolas had pointed ears! I have never thought that elves could have pointed ears (that´s why i began that thread). I think all of you have seen the comics or the cartoons, and obviously they have influenced you. Better? Worse? I don´t know. But cartoons have altered LOTR in some points for those who have seen them.

[Darth Tater]

Say what you will, I am not one who wants to see the great works of Tolkien changed. Sure, I realize it is impossible to convert them to the screen perfectly, but I personally want a movie that will be a good companion to the book, a visualization of the story. I don't want a different version. Tolkien is a genious, and the story he wrote is perfect. Minor changes are necessary for the making of a movie, but I really think that making unnecessary changes is just wrong. That's my two cents.

[Eruve]

I'm with you, Tater!

[Michael Martinez]

Minor nit: ALL of Tolkien's races come from the east. That's all I want to say on the subject of WASPs. As for humor, I think Boromir has the best line in the book. Can anyone guess what I'm referring to? It's a bit condescending, but I think it shows Boromir can appreciate the irony in a very dangerous situation. It gives him a little depth.

[Eruve]

OK, I'll give it a go... Is it where the Fellowship is trying to find the West Gate of Moria, while escaping from Wargs, and Boromir says, "I do not know which to hope, that Gandalf will find what he seeks, or that coming to the cliff we shall find the gates lost forever."?

[Fat middle]

yes, i thought also in that quote. Last time i read it i was surprised by that comment, but it seemed for me more sarcastic than humorous.

[Eruve]

Yeah, I don't consider that quote all that humourous, either, but it was all I could find without rereading BookII in its entirely. Aren't I sad that I even had to skim through just to find that???

[Fat middle]

i went directly cuz i had read it recently, but you were faster posting.

[Michael Martinez]

Sorry, but that's not the quote. Think of when they are carrying the boats past the rapids at Sarn Gebir in "The Great River".

[juntel]

... I always thought Tolkien gave a germanic nobility to the Elves... Which could bring us to the subject of racism: who are those elephant-riding people in TheReturnofTHeKing? African-like? That is a recurrent subject, wheter one agrees or not, and I wonder how they will be depicted in the movie...

[anduin]

"We need sleep, and even if Agagorn had a mind to pass the Gates if Argonath by night, we are all too tired-except, no doubt, our sturdy dwarf." Is this the quote you are refering to MM?

[Fat middle]

aah, that´s better... BTW, have any of you checked the poll at TOR.N. It´s about the best comic relief character in LOTR. I found very weird the results, but that´s how people see it...

[Michael Martinez]

Anduin, yes, that was the quote. Boromir was poking fun at Gimli, who had been bragging earlier about how the Dwarves were so tough, and Gimli was nodding off as Boromir spoke. I've always loved that line, though it is a bit mean.

[Michael Martinez]

Juntel, the elephant riders are actually modelled after either the warriors of ancient India or the Carthaginians (who would be semites). Alexander introduced elephant warfare to the Mediterranean world after he encountered elephants with armies furher east in Asia, and elephant warfare spread throughout the Middle East and north Africa. So it was never associated with Black Africans. It was really a Greco-Macedonian-Indian practice. Tolkien was by no means racist. He was simply portraying a war between many peoples, and not all the people on the "good" side are white, nor all the people on the "bad" side dark.

[juntel]

Thanks for clearing that up for me Michael; next time I'll have a copy of LotR in my hands I'll look at that passage and think of Hannibal! (I had forgotten about him)

[Hernalt]

I feel the word 'racist' would be strong, and what I was articulating had more to do with the "unsalvation" of the non-Elf-friends than any skin color. Without being ""racist"", there was still a high-minded favoritism to the West because of their relations with the Elves and Valar. I challenge anyone, Martinez included :D, to vouch that Tolkien could have sociologically placed Aman in the East WITH the same original conceptions (as in BOLT II) that England had at one time been Tol Eressae. (Obviously the geography majors will step forth and say that that would make no thematic sense, but my challenge is on the sociologic aspect.) I'm also trying not to alienate anyone. But I disagree with sterilizing history, and perpetrations are no anthem in case some genius thinks to essay that. That Tolkien did not have a racial agenda is obvious; that he did not have a religious agenda is obvious, but does Everyone agree that his work, his private world until brought to light, was utterly devoid of racial underpinnings? Do your worst Martinez! :)

[juntel]

To my knowledge all cosmogonies are written from an ethnocentric point of vue. So when Tolkien built his world, did he build it from an omniscient point of vue, or did he try to include the usual subjective veil of some "guardians of the tribe's history"? E.g. when we read The Silmarillion, should we think this book as the "word of god", or a very old and therefore degraded story of the glory of what was? In this case, racial underpinnings, ethnocentrism (..cism? cisism? bah, wtf!) might not be a mere accident, but a litteral necessity (adding "credibility").

[Elanor]

Isn't this what a large part of the books are about? I mean, the whole Gimli/Legolas thing is about overcoming racial and cultural background to achieve friendship. And Arwen and Aragorn! The fact that all the "free peoples" participate in the war gives it a strong feeling of interracial awareness and respect to me. Though I've always felt sorry for the orcs. If they were raised and taught to be civilized, couldn't they be basically like anyone else--aside from extreme ugliness? I know Morgoth twisted their minds and bodies, but could he twist their spirits? Well, I'm sure all you experts have an answer to that one. ;)

[Hernalt]

No experts here. Just adamant aficionados.

[Darth Tater]

Some of you may hate me for saying this, but I believe that all of us have prejudices and stereotypes, especially when it comes to race. Tolkien was in no way perfect, no one is. I don't have my books near by, but I do remember a passage where dark skinned men were seen doing slave labour for Sauron. Tolkien grew up in a society that had treated blacks as inferior for many years, it would not make sense if he did not have these stereotypes.

[Hernalt]

Thank you Tater. All respects to Martinez. The only anthem I have is that we understand the cultural venue in which this masterpiece was written. That is all I am after. Schools have banned more famous works because of perceived and/or alleged racial undertones which were not considered fitting for the 'age' of school-goers. I can't explain why this is an issue to me other than in a search for truth. The truth is out there. ;D

[Hernalt]

Ok. Michael Martinez' latest and very informational essay is When is a movie not just a movie? (http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/tolkien/33395) I highly insist that everyone read it who has an opinion about """"race"""" in Tolkien. I tried to be careful and general with my points; I didn't think they'd be weak intimations or veiled references as if I couldn't articulate an argument. But Martinez must have seen the last straw somewhere, and has chosen to address it.

[Eruve]

I wouldn't sweat it, Hernalt. The race issue seems to come up on the news groups at least every two months or so...

[Hernalt]

Hey hey HeY! Eruve just said I'm sweating it! Gar! ~H squinches his eyes up like E Cartman~

[Eruve]

Well, you were the one making fun of my age! :P

[Hernalt]

I was not. I find older women quite... um.. hm.

[Michael Martinez]

No one should take that essay personally. I was pressed for time and was inspired to try and turn a long-standing Tolkien controversy into an interesting question for people who are concerned about the Peter Jackson movies. As it turns out, the story in Variety magazine about George Lucas has been repudiated by the official Star Wars site, as I guess many of you know by now. All of us have our own prejudices, and Tolkien was no exception. But people would be surprised, I think, to learn that his prejudices were in exactly the opposite direction from what is commonly inferred about them. He was first and foremost a devout Christian. He thought of himself as a Catholic, but in his mind the love of God was paramount, and God's love -- so far as the Bible teaches us -- is given to all of us freely despite our short-comings. Acceptance, tolerance, understanding -- these are common themes in Tolkien's stories. THE BOOK OF LOST TALES was intended to be a mythology for England. Tolkien was feeling a bit nationalistic when he began it (in 1916, while recovering from Trench Fever in a hospital). He was, after all, a soldier who had served his country, and all but one of his friends paid the greatest price for freedom in that terrible war. I don't think that anyone should be surprised to see that Tolkien wanted to give something special to his people and his country, and there is nothing elitist or racist in his intentions. But THE BOOK OF LOST TALES became less important to Tolkien as the years passed, and the spirit which drove him was the spirit of story-telling. The stories -- the themes -- from BOLT took on new forms, and eventually became THE SILMARILLION, but the legendarium was no longer intended to be a mythology for England. Nonetheless, because Tolkien continued to tell stories about "the northwest of the Old World, east of the Sea", he had to conform to the expectations of logic. That means the protagonists of his stories would be northern peoples and their enemies would have to be themselves, fantasy creatures, or peoples from other regions of the world. And he eventually ensured that the enemies were drawn from all ranks, all peoples. Heroism in Tolkien is not about defeating other races, but rather about rising above one's own faults and shortcomings to do what is right, and not what is right for one's people or one's self, but for everyone. The defeat of Morgoth benefitted the whole world, not just the northern peoples. And the defeat of Sauron defeated the entire world. That's why Tolkien lost interest in telling further stories about Middle-earth. There was no longer a single embodiment of evil which could threaten everyone. He would just be setting man against man, and his stories no matter how clever would not have been about the fantastic but about the realistic. He felt THE NEW SHADOW could have been no better than a thriller, and he had no interest in writing one.

[Hernalt]

I still running off RAM, but Martinez is pushing some buttons. >8( ;D To better articulate the nature of my observation: Being that the Elves saw the Light of Valinor and were in the presense of 'gods', they are rendered by Tolkien as the 'true believers.' Whether he intended it or not, this motif most closely resembles, in all of Earth history, the 'true believer'ism of Christianity/Christendom. Scant few of the thralls of Melkor as documented in person, so we don't see into their mental process except for the short statement that "their wills were chained to his." But as a class, the Elves are in character given much more Resistance to Melkor's evil. Ie, Elves/Christians are given much more natural ability to defy being evil. This is what I find sublty painted in light hues and tones so that the cultures East and South, who are MEN, are easily identified, not as the anthropologic Homo Sapien races of Mongolian and Negroid, but as Non-Christian cultures. Christiocentricity scares the hell out of me. ""Racism"" would be too low a device for Tolkien to use, but the matter of Faith was not, considering that addressing and even justifying mortality was his main agenda. I'd have to say that while gleaning some fine, heartwarming points from Western religion can leave a soft fuzzy feeling in the most criminally agnostic soul, the concept of mortality Can be tackled by adequate minds without invoking Western divinity, or divinity at All, for that matter. So indeed it is not an irritant in any way to read Tolkien, the Christian Man, and see where he evangelized his beautiful gospel of Faith and Trust in his Illuvatar, because the magic he created in the telling punctures the professed thick skin of the agnostic. (I don't consider myself agnostic, btw.) What IS an irritant is to see the politicallycorrected modern generation essay that Tolkien was a pure vessel of objectivity. (I'll see how far I can get without opening any books... ;)