LoTR Movie-related

[Seton,Lothlorien Guardian]

Why didnt PJ make 6 (or 5) films?
There would have been alot more room for footage, and he would have gotten more of it right. You know how there are 2 books in each novel? PJ could have made a movie for each book in the novel, how ever that would not work for books 3 and 4.
But, you could always incorporate the two books together to produce 2 films that are about Aragorn's adventures and Frodo's adventures as they happen during the same time.

I dont think im getting my idea right there, but digest it as you may.

[Aralyn]

Well that makes sense only if he did one once a year it would take five years for it to come out. Also it would be too hard to go from Frodo to Aragorn. Although I see your point.

[gimli7410]

it would also be harder for the actors to make that long of a commitment

[Elf.Freak]

or PJ didn't think of that!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I think it would have been a good idea. 6 movies, more accurate. How many HP movies will there be? 5, right? Why not 5 or 6 LOTR movies?

[mithrand1r]

I think that it may have been problematic from a film point of view.

It has been mentioned in other areas of the board that the book moves at a more leisurely paced (in general) than many films (especially PJ&Co. LOTR).

If one was to film the books as are without additions to the material, there would be many areas of relative low amounts of action. (Thankfully the books
were not a hack and slash fantasy film) While this may be acceptable for reading at your own pace, if not done correctly it would hard to view (for me) on
film.

This is not to say that LOTR broken into 6 films could not be done. Only that there are potentially more pitfalls.

On the plus side

Films would be about 1½ hours in length
(easier to see each film in one showing and Film houses could have more showings of each LOTR film)
Could get more of books into film (ie Tom B., Farmer Maggot, Glorfindol (sp?), Council of Elrond [in more detail], etc.)

On the minus side

If not done well, potentially more things to criticize ;)
Everything in books are not all up tempo in action. If not Filmed well, this will be boring cinema.
Filming Books 3&4 and 5&6 separately may not be practical, since the timelines are nearly parallel.
Some of the endings may not be considered as a "traditional"* cliffhanger and/or end of a film (ie Breaknig of Fellowship @ end of bk 2, or Gandalf &
Pippen riding off to Gondor @ end of repsective book [I forget whether it was 3 or 4]) which may puzzle some people.

* Actually the current films have the same "problem", but with 3 films instead of 6 this only occurs 2 times instead of potentially 5 times.

Sincerely,
Anthony
:cool:

[Lalaith]

There would be no production firm which would agree to 5 (or 6) movies. PJ already had problems with getting the permission for three movies.

[Erawyn]

Not enough story arch in each book to make a successful movie.

[Erawyn]

Not enough story arch in each book to make a successful movie.

[gimli7410]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
I think it would have been a good idea. 6 movies, more accurate. How many HP movies will there be? 5, right? Why not 5 or 6 LOTR movies?

Actually they have decided that they will probably only do 3 because right now the actors are ahead 1 years of the the characters

[Lalaith]

Actually they have decided that they will probably only do 3 because right now the actors are ahead 1 years of the the characters
Okay, I don't understand that, could you please explain it to me!

[Aranwe]

They could have split it into the actual books of LOTR. I think there were about 6 or 7, but throughout the 3 books you ocasionally see a "Book #" heading page, and I definately remember seeing a Book 4 heading (in TTT I think). I guess this must be how tolkien originally wrote the story, but I don't have my books here so I can't check :(

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
I think it would have been a good idea. 6 movies, more accurate. How many HP movies will there be? 5, right?
7, but not necessarily all the same actors.

[Lalaith]

Tolkien wrote 6 books:

Fellowship of the Ring
Book 1: Frodos journey to Rivendell
Book 2: The Fellowship from Rivendell till Amon Hen

The Two Towers
Book 3: Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli in Rohan/ Merry, Pippen in Fangorn
Book 4: Frodo and Sam from Amon Hen till Cirith Ungol

The Return of the king
Book 5: The Battle of Pellenor
Book 6: Frodo and Sam (+ Gollum) from Cirith Ungol till Mount Doom, and the ending with the wedding of Aragorn and Arwen and the hobbits back in the shire

[Blackboar]

Yes,

1)The ring sets out
2)The ring goes south
3)The treason of Isenguard
4)The ring goes East
5)The war of te ring
6)The end of the third age
7)Appendices

[#1GaMGeeGuRL]

I dunno. I still can't get over the near-devastation when I first watched FoTR (I watched the movies before I read the books, my bad I know) when I thought they were all just going home after Rivendell because of Frodo saying, "I am ready to go home." But if you had read the books first that wouldn't have been a problem. I'm just sayin' it would be bad idea from my point of view. Though, I would have sat through the Fellowship if it had been 10 hours long if they had gotten everything accurate. The same with TTT and probably will be the same for RoTK.

[Lalaith]

Exactly. I would watch LOTR if it was 20 hours althogether.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

As would I, and I'd love it! :D

[Andúril]

mithrand1r:
Films would be about 1½ hours in length:Doesn't that defeat the object of splitting the story into six films? :rolleyes:

[Aranwe]

Not from the producers POV... twice as much money for the same footage :rolleyes:

If it was to be more than 3 movies, splitting it into the 6 "books", not missing any parts out and doing some scenes in more detail would be the best option in my opinion.

[Andúril]

I'm looking at it from the thread-starter's point of view. Six 2.5-3 hour films in order to throw more of the story into the overall LotR film-saga...

Anyway, mithrand1r proposes six 90+- minute films, making 540+- minutes in total. As it is now, the three films are also about 540 minutes. So why would someone:mithrand1r:
get more of books into film (ie Tom B., Farmer Maggot, Glorfindol (sp?), Council of Elrond [in more detail], etc.)...if the total length is the same?

[Lalaith]

But a 6 movie series would be more for book-fans and not so much for the non-readers.