The most suitable breakdown: movies vs books

[Sarumian]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

No, that would drag out the story interminably. I believe PJ made the right overall decision in shooting “Lord if the Rings” as a trilogy– and I don’t think that’s what most criticisms have been about, anyway.

I can see the point of here but wasn't there quite a discussion about omissions made in FoTR? The travel through the Shire, Old Forest, the house of Bombadil and Barrow Downs are not in the movie. While it is justifiable to skip them if it is only one film, these are still among my favourite chapters of the book. The skirmish with wolves in Hollin and the encounter between Gandalf and Balrog in the Chamber of Mazarbul is missing as well as some events during the journey down the Great river, while the council of Elrond is shortened.

RoTK, on the other hand, seemed to be far too long to so many viewers and yet the whole Scouring of the Shire was thrown away, and the screen cut look as one none-stop battle scene.

Why then not to try to do two normal length movies where there is great material for two movies?

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Sarumian

I can see the point of here but wasn't there quite a discussion about omissions made in FoTR? The travel through the Shire, Old Forest, the house of Bombadil and Barrow Downs are not in the movie. While it is justifiable to skip them if it is only one film, these are still among my favourite chapters of the book. The skirmish with wolves in Hollin and the encounter between Gandalf and Balrog in the Chamber of Mazarbul is missing as well as some events during the journey down the Great river, while the council of Elrond is shortened.

RoTK, on the other hand, seemed to be far too long to so many viewers and yet the whole Scouring of the Shire was thrown away, and the screen cut look as one none-stop battle scene.

Why then not to try to do two normal length movies where there is great material for two movies?

Because... here we go... "films and books are different mediums”. Yes, this is the annoying fanboy rallying-cry, often used to dismiss any criticism of the movies whatever... but is literally true, nonetheless. If you want everything included, you need to do it as a series.

Besides, at that time Jackson could simply not have got away with what you’re suggesting. Unknown director adapts famous, beloved trilogy as five-parter? There wasn’t the current tolerance then for drawing every book into multiple parts for the screen adaptation– and Jackson didn’t have legions of fans to support his every decision.

That said, I do think some of the omitted material could well have been included, without the drastic structural changes you suggest. It’s a question of focus– various sequences that are in the films could have been shortened; the fan-fiction-y added scenes could have been left out (should have been, in fact).