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

[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.

[Nimrodel_9]

I completely agree with Aina.

FotR had the same affect on me. To this day I prefer to watch it over the other two. I think the reason is (to me anyway) it seemed for fantastic. It seemed to draw me into Middle-earth. The feeling was there in the other two but I feel the "magic" of Tolkien's more strongly in the Fellowship.

[Ainaserkewen]

But why? I think most of us agree that the first was made the best, but why? The nature of the movie, the single stream of consciousness, or perhaps that's just how it happened? What do you think?

[Saurreg]

FoTR was a novelty - the first of its kind. We haven't had a LoTR movie since the Bakshi animation and were yet to be introduced to the great cinematography nor the mindblowing special effects. Secondly as I have stated before, FoTR was the most fateful adaptation of the three films. We went in the theater with high expectations and a background knowledge of the books hence were gratified when the film followed closely to the book and provided us with what we expected.

Those in my opinion are what made FoTR more endearing to some of us.

Must have read your mind. Does honey ever expire?

Ah, a psychic in the house! It looked an unnatural shade of cream and had a funky fermented smell to it. Could have saved it to brew mead, if I knew how.