Smell this, I think it's expired...

[alatar]

I would have to agree with Ainaserkewen.

This is not to say that TTT and ROTK are not great movies; it's just that FOTR was the best of the three. I own all three in EE DVD format, and on any given night could watch any of them. Most times I choose FOTR as (to me) it was the movie closest to JRRT.

TTT was too PJ, and though he corrected this somewhat in ROTK, it also smelled more of PJ than JRRT.

To me PJ saw how well FOTR was received and thought that this permitted him to (a) add more of his own material to TTT and (b) hype it up a bit with more special effects. After TTT, he did the same in ROTK, but also must have heard some of the grumblings from the faithful, and so tried to get back on course a bit.

But he also wanted to show what some cash and WETA could do.

Another problem (think that I've stated this many times now, so sorry if I'm playing the tape again...) was that the characters became less interesting as they became more and more caricatures of themselves. Gimli the clown, Legolas the ultimate surfer/warrior, etc. Some characters grew, yet not as much as they did in FOTR.

And I didn't like the ents. And don't get me started (again) regarding Gandalf's staff, which is why I'm here in the first place.

Anyway, note that I'm not saying that the three movies weren't wonderful nor not popular, but just that FOTR will always be my fav.

[Saurreg]

Originally Posted by alatar

TTT was too PJ, and though he corrected this somewhat in ROTK, it also smelled more of PJ than JRRT.

Hear! Hear!

[Ainaserkewen]

Yes, well said. Followship felt more Tolkien-e than the others. It was playful and scrumptuously detailed.

Am I right in saying that it was cut better?

Also, the phantom, you were making sense...you should continue.

[Holbytlass]

As far as 'flowy-ness' goes, in FotR, there was just one storyline, Frodo's. As we all know in TTT and RotK, they split and split and split then some reunite and then all reunite. Fellowship is my favorite because I tend to like quests a little more than epics. One thing I like about the movies is they clarified some things for me especially in TTT. I am a visual person and even though PJ didn't put everything in, I understand whats going on in TTT, Helm's deep part, better in the books. That I'm greatful for. Still FotR is my favorite.

[Saurreg]

FoTR was in my opinion the most fateful adaptation of the original work. Aside from some minor changes for drama, the overall script followed the original book quite well. The other two installments were more loose based and there were several deviations from the fundamentals of the book. Some of the changes that were debatable were;

1. Theoden's on-screen persona
2. Denethor's on-screen persona
3. The manipulation of the AoD by Aragon (which, in term reflects on Aragon's on screen persona)
4. Elrond's on-screen persona
5. Omission of the scouring of the Shire.

It is very easy to attribute the debatable changes to PJ's and PB's combined ego and that was exactly the notion I held when I first saw the two movies. I was abit disappointed with the final cuts and even the EE did no justice for me. However with time I have learned to accept what the two sequels were - darn good films and even learned to like them base on their own merits.

Recently, I read an article based on an interview with the incomparable Ghassan Massoud who played the great Saladin in Kingdom of Heaven and this is what he had to say on drama and fidelity;

"Who said drama had to be historically accurate? Who said that drama’s role was to recreate history? If you want history, go to a bookstore. Drama is drama. Drama’s role is to create a story that has a central conflict; and the story doesn’t have to be constrained to historical factuality; so it is any innovator’s right to grab a portion of history and recreate a sample of what life may have been like,"

That was perhaps the fairest and most truthful statement ever spoken on the need be fateful in adaption whilst creating drama. The same idea can be applied here by substituting history with original literature. The dramatics were needed in TTT and RoTK for the films to succeed in conveying its theme. And though these changes might have altered some of the fundamentals, they were instrumental in taking the casual audience into ME and introducing the vision of Tolkien with the rest of humanity a way the books can never achieve.

P.S: Ainaserkewen - How did you come up with such a title for this thread? It brought a smile to my lips because those were the exact same words my sister spoke to me last night when she rummaged through the fridge and produced a jar of honey. She popped open the lid, frowned and turned to me,

"Smell this. I think it's expired..."

[Ainaserkewen]

As far as 'flowy-ness' goes, in FotR, there was just one storyline, Frodo's.

You know, maybe you're right. There was one plot line that had everything to do with itself. Perhaps the others would have done better had they kept the same order as the books and completely separated the two stories. Then at least they could have used the Mouth of Sauron part better...

How did you come up with such a title for this thread? It brought a smile to my lips because those were the exact same words my sister spoke to me last night when she rummaged through the fridge and produced a jar of honey. She popped open the lid, frowned and turned to me,

"Smell this. I think it's expired..."

Must have read your mind. Does honey ever expire?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Aina

Perhaps the others would have done better had they kept the same order as the books and completely separated the two stories.

Although it works well in the books, this, to my mind, would have worked shockingly in the films. Perhaps it's just that we're all used to seeing the various threads of a story develop simlutaneously, rather than sequentially, on the screen, but it seems to me that there must be a reason why this is done in films. Maybe it's because people tend to invest less time and emotion in films than in books and so audiences would forget the first storyline by the time the second came to the end. Or perhaps, as films are more immediate, it would just have confused the time-scale in people's minds. Whatever, it would have seemed very strange to have the two stories develop sequentially in the films, as they do in the book.

EDIT: A further thought. Presenting the two threads of the story sequentially on film would have produced two climaxes, in TTT at least - one halfway through the film and the other at the end.