Would it have been better for FOTR if...

It was longer? Wait, hear me out. I haven't seen it, but my Dad has. He didn't like it that much (no insults, please), partially because they had added stuff that wasn't in the book, therefore taking up time that could've been used for things that were in the book. So, anyway, I recently watched Lawrence of Arabia (great movie) and now I got an idea: Along with not adding the stuff in the books (I'm not talking about reading between the lines kind of stuff, but the Galadriel morphs into a hideous creature kind of stuff), but also making it longer--between 4 and 5 hours--and having an intermission in between parts like the previously mentioned film. Then you could also film whatever else is needed or wanted and add that to the DVD. What are your thoughts and ideas on this? What else do you think could have made it a better film than it is?

 

That's why they have an EXTENDED DVD coming out in November, I think PJ beat ya to it boy.

 

What I'm talking about is adding the stuff like Tom adil and the Scouring of the Shire (neither of which were probably filmed)
into either the theatrical or DVD release, take out the stuff that wasn't in the book other than the fleshed out scenes that weren't really detailed in the book that require some imagination (such as the Long Expected Party), and make it even closer to the book than it is--or even would be with the extended DVD.

 

I thought it was a great movie...but it would definitely have been better longer. IMHO, they hurried Frodo's leave from the Shire way too much, and I thought the incident at the Barrow Downs was important as well (along with Tom Bombadil, of course). My pet peeves with the movie were that Arwen replaced the elf lord Glorfindel in the Flight to the Ford, and that Gandalf seemed to throw himself off the bridge when in actuality the Balrog's whip was supposed to be wrapped around him still, dragging him down.

Well, I'd better not get started on a rant...so I'll end with agreeing that FotR would have been better as a very long, detailed movie

 

As big of a Tolkien fan as I am (I've read all of his books and several of the History of ME books) I can't help but agree with PJ, you CANNOT translate that book to screen word by word, it's impossible. And he was right in cutting the Tom Bombadil scene, it would take all of the speed out of the movie, and for everybody who wasn't a Tolkien nut that would be very annoying. Arwen needed a bigger role so people would remember who she was when she comes to marry Aragorn. Else it would be rather confusing (especially the Eowyn scenes.)

Besides, Tom is my least favorite part of the books anyway.

I didn't know that they had taken the Scourging of the Shire out of the movie but if they did I'm sure that there's a good explanation for it.

It's a movie based on the books, not the books in movie form, remember that.

 

Well, I'd agree about some of the scenes dragging for non-Tolkien nuts, so they were right not to make it longer for the initial showing...but it would have been great if they'd made an "Ultimate Fan Edition DVD" that was nearly line-for-line.

Actually, my brother had a great idea: why not substitute Star Wars lines for all the FotR script? After all, the Prancing Pony is something like the Cantina (Bill Ferny about his southron buddy to Frodo: "he doesn't like you...I don't like you either!") and the Watcher in the Water somewhat resembles the creature in the DS garbage masher (Frodo to Legolas: "Shoot it!" "Where?" "Anywhere!!")

Hey, it could work

 

Pelleaon-- I see what you're saying. I think ine had a good idea with the Ultimate Edition thing (or perhaps Tolkien Nut Edition? ). That would be the way to do Tom adil, Scourging of the Shire, etc. It's too bad he couldn't film any of those scenes for a DVD release.

 

No offense to those who did, but I think the majority of Tolkien fans didn't really like Tom Bombadil. The bit with him didn't do much to progress the story, and I actually found it a bit annoying. When I go back and read the books now I generally skip over that part. Personally, I was very happy that they left it out of the theatrical release. The same goes for a lot of the singing. I know some people loved it, but I just found a lot of it annoying.

 

Hobbits running naked in the fields? Gee I wonder how would the audience react to that relatively harmless scene. In our homophobic society? If I were PJ I would be in a tight spot worried whether to use some of the upcoming scenes between Frodo and Sam, where the eight grade maturity will kick in around the theaters of our great nation, even though INTELLIGENT people know better. So it's probably a good thing he cut them out.

"How bout substituing Star Wars lines in..."

Here's a much better idea. How about substituting some of Tolkien's lines in the new Star Wars movies instead? Maybe then AOTC's dialogue would have sounded rather beautiful instead of absolutely dreadful.Oh come on Star Wars people! don't start having flame fit please. It was half joking, but Tolkien IS much better at writing colorful language and dialogue than Lucas and Ring's Bree scene pre-dates the Cantina.

 

On hobbits running in fields I would make an exception.

 

yeah, I'd forgotten about the "hobbits in the fields" thing...

and of course LotR predates Star Wars I read somewhere that The Lord of the Rings is really the basis on which all science fiction now rests (if that's not what everyone else has heard, don't yell at me! Perhaps I'm somewhat behind the times )

 

Yeah, I can see it. Perhaps Gandalf=Obi-Wan...

 

It would have been economically unfeasible to make FOTR any longer than it was. Just be happy with the Extended DVD.

 

I guess so... Another idea my dad had was to make it just one big super budget epic miniseries. Thoughts?

 

I don't know about all of sci-fi, but I would definitely say it has profound influence on Fantasy. Dungeons & Dragons (orcs, halflings, etc.) and other such role-playing, fantasy novels and even computer games such as today's Warcraft III (dark elves was an earlier race than the humans, etc) must pay homage to Tolkien.

Edit 1
Note: I liked Bombadill. He's a bit of Tolkien whimsy, and a means of showing the wonder and 'magic' of Middle Earth. He did play some small role in getting Frodo & friends out of a jam on the way to Bree, and was the one who actually provided them with the swords they used (except for Sting, which Frodo acquired at Rivendell).

Edit 2
That said, I don't have a problem taking ol' Tom out. Too much story. PJ got around this part of the story easily and smoothly. The only thing I really question is showing the actual battle between Gandalf and Saruman. This battle isn't described in such detail in the novel, and I would have been fine if it had been somewhat left up to our imagination in the movie. Maybe show Saruman 'closing' the doors on Gandalf, and after a time-lapse we see Gandalf on top of the tower, defeated. That would have sufficed for me.

 

If there wasn't an Elvish, there would be no Klingon maybe? Yes there's LOTR/Tolkien inspirations in Star Wars too, the Gandalf Obi-Wan the most prominent, maybe Dune also, other sci-fi's I'm sure. Basically yes, it has a lot of influence on anything like sci-fi quests or certain portrayls of good and evil as shadow and light dualities, are all influences. So none of that Gandalf coming back from copied Obi-Wan from anyone when TTT drops, or they'll be very sorry.

 

And, of course, the real story is as old as the hills. An epic allegorical battle between good and evil. Lord of the Rings did it better than anyone had before, practically, but it wasn't exactly a brand new story. Lord of the Rings was influential, but it was also influenced.

Still, you know what they say: There are only six completely original stories. Everything else is variations on theme.

 

I read somewhere that Tolkeins work along with the Authorian legends are the bases of modern fantasy and stuff like that...

 

5 hours? RIGGGHT! NO.

 

Be realistic-- if the movie is 5 hours long, the average person will not go and see it for that reason.


And I agree with gwaer: The singing sucked, major bore.

 

Okay, let me clarify. So the theatrical 5 hour release wouldn't be a hot idea AT ALL. What I'm saying is from--what I've heard of the movie--would it help if there was more than what's supposed to be on the DVD. I'm not saying word for word, every thing HAS to be on it. I'm saying that it might have been better to film a little more like, as I said before, stuff like the adil/downs, etc.
If you were PJ, what scenes would you leave out and what should be put in?

 

I think maybe it would have done very well with the already-fans to make it longer, but it wouldn't have done nearly as well at the box office. We have to remember that money, unfortunately, is a major driving force in the movie industry.
Hey! I loved Tom Bombadil! I thought he was really cool! That still stands. To me he's one of the the bright spots of Lord of the Rings, which grows to be a rather dark tale.
What you said about including the Scouring of the Shire doesn't really apply to THIS case, since it would wind up in Return of the King anyway, but I do see your point, and would like to see it in the movie.

 

I read somewhere that The Lord of the Rings is really the basis on which all science fiction now rests

Actually, all modern science fiction has its basis in Dune, not LOTR. In fact, LOTR is NOT an original story, as is commonly misconcieved, but is a conglomeration of names, plots, creatures, locations, and ideas from older, greater, and more entertaining mythology and lore. If any story were to rest upon Lort of the Rings, it is actually resting upon the classical literature.

BTW, orcs, the baelrog, dark elves, nazguls, the names Moria, Arwen, Legolas... are not originally created by Tolken, but instead Tolken took the names and ideas and placed them in his story. It is ashame that his work predates general copywrighting, and that he did not site his sources in any of his books or stories)

 

(rolls eyes)

All science-fiction is ultimately traceable to the seminal novel by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, FRANKENSTEIN, the Modern Prometheus published in the early 1800s. Tales as diverse as TERMINATOR, JURASSIC PARK and 2001 share this book as their ancestor.

This extraordinary and visionary tale gave birth to not one, but two genres, science-fiction and horror. It stretched mankind's concept of how science could alter our perceptions and imagination in a way that no fictional work before had even attempted.

I am sure it would come as quite a shock to Isaac Asimov, Jules Verne and H.G. Wells that science-fiction originated with DUNE, which is a laughable concept. I'm a huge DUNE fan, but it did NOT originate science-fiction.

I've NEVER thought of Tolkien's work as science-fiction. Though I love it.

FOTR did a fine job of converting the book to the screen in a cinematic way. I don't know how Peter Jackson could've done a better job and still retained a mass audience. For those who didn't get enough, I'm sure the DVD will suffice.

 

I did not say that science fiction originated with Dune, but instead Dune is the basis for MODERN sci-fi. I didn't doubt that the earlier writers had a fantastic impact upon the modern fictional story (I don't consider Wells and Verne to be science fiction writers in their prime, as they predate the concept of such a story)

But Dune can clearly be seen as the dominant influence in almost all recent science-fiction/fantasy, as can clearly be seen in Orson Scott Card's Ender Saga, Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time, and even George Lucas' Star Wars. I did not mean that Dune was the origin or basis for all, sci-fi, and I am sorry if i did say that before.