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

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

After success was assured, PJ was free to add a little more of his own vision.

Except that all three films had largely been written and filmed by the time that FotR was released. You could have a point on the editing, though, I suppose.

I find it difficult to choose between FotR and RotK as my favourite. FotR amazed me when I saw it and, as others have said, it was our first experience of Jackson's screen adaptations. But RotK, for me, has a lot more powerful and tear-jerking moments.

I would agree with the majority, though, that TTT was the weakest. Partly because it is the "middle of the story" and so has no real beginning or end. But also because the changes made in TTT were the ones that bothered me the most, in the sense that many were either gratuitous, introduced internal inconsistencies or just didn't work as well as the original story.

That said, I still greatly enjoyed all three films.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Except that all three films had largely been written and filmed by the time that FotR was released. You could have a point on the editing, though, I suppose.

Not that I'd ever defend PJ (though I'm eternally thankful that he did what he did), but was the editing of FOTR more carefully done, as afterwards he then had to cut the FOTR EE version (and start a trend/revenue cash cow there) along with editing/enhancing TTT? Was this the reason that ROTK was somewhat better as his workload decreased somewhat as most of the machinery was already in place?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by alatar

Not that I'd ever defend PJ (though I'm eternally thankful that he did what he did), but was the editing of FOTR more carefully done, as afterwards he then had to cut the FOTR EE version (and start a trend/revenue cash cow there) along with editing/enhancing TTT? Was this the reason that ROTK was somewhat better as his workload decreased somewhat as most of the machinery was already in place?

Perhaps, if you do prefer FotR that is, it was a benefit that PJ had less time to work on his editing? Often, the best work is produced while under pressure; maybe PJ had less time to procrastinate and hence to fiddle about with what was already good in the case of FotR? That would depend on which film you think is the best though.

Originally Posted by SpM

Except that all three films had largely been written and filmed by the time that FotR was released. You could have a point on the editing, though, I suppose.

I'd say editing is just as important in film making as directing or scriptwriting - the documentary which came with the recent Star Wars box set showed how Lucas at first had edited Star Wars really badly and needed to have a rethink. It is basically as important to a film maker as structure is to a writer. And in FotR this was well done - as several people have said already, FotR had good pacing:

Originally Posted by the phantom

I believe that Fellowship did a much better job sustaining suspense and tension throughout the movie, where as the other two movies had more fights but less substance between.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Perhaps, if you do prefer FotR that is, it was a benefit that PJ had less time to work on his editing? Often, the best work is produced while under pressure; maybe PJ had less time to procrastinate and hence to fiddle about with what was already good in the case of FotR? That would depend on which film you think is the best though.

Not saying that you're wrong, but I've never liked that argument, as usually it goes untested. I can't count the times that persons tell me that they work really well under pressure and when they've procrastinated, and hold up x as the result. My contention always is is what would x look like if more time and less pressure were applied?

Something that I've had to learn while working is to plan and design more, and 'react' less.

And not that I don't procrastinate, nor require negative incentives to gain momentum...

[Lalwendë]

I don't actually like that argument myself! But it is a possibility.

Where the difference lay could be in that as the films took so long to make, PJ could have begun (or at least supervised from a distance) work on the editing while the filming process was underway. Wasn't RotK originally as seen in the extended edition and then cut for the cinema, while FotR and TT extended editions actually had added material?

[mormegil]

Does anyone else feel that insufficient time was given to Frodo and Sam in their actual journey through Mordor? When the book is read it's impossible not to see how desperate and pathetic their plight is. Contrasting the movie, it seems that the come over the mountain, the orcs move and they are near Mt. Doom all happens very quickly. Now I realize that in the EE it's a bit better but not up to par with the book. In reading the book, every time I do, I just feel is Frodo going to make it? or how can they endure this?

It may have been too boring to put in the movie but I would like to see their situation a bit more desperate. Maybe I'm not remembering enough of it but I would like other opinions.

As far as Theodens rousing speak, I am in full agreement with SpM on this. I find it probably the most moving part of the movie (just after Aragorns first kiss with Arwen ). Every time that I hear that I want to get up and jump into the battle with them.

Edit: I need to add that at the end when Frodo gives his speech it's a bit more desperate but at that point they are already at Mt Doom. (Also a very moving moment) I guess I just wanted to see more of their actual traveling

[Ainaserkewen]

The EE of Fellowship was a disapointment. Of course, aside from all the new information that was released to non-book fans and how great it was to know a bit more of what was going on, the EE, well, it sucked (for lack of a better term).

Please feel free to argue with me.

I didn't see the EE until about 2 years after I fell in love with the original. I'd read the books by then many times and still appreciated Fellowship whilst patiently awaiting Return. I was hoping that the EE would give me a better insight into what I was to expect for ROTK.

So I watched it from front to back and I was horrified. The original flowyness, the perfect dialog, sounds, and characters, destroyed with the few new added scenes. The movie suddenly became Two Towers like, klunky, awkward and cheesy at too many points. The momentum was gone.

Of course, this could just be because of how I feel about the original and books aside, thought it was very detailed and carefully made. Like I said, feel free to argue, I'd like to hear other's perspectives.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

These events are there for cinematic reasons - there is no thought about whether what happens on screen makes sense, only about whether it looks good.

I don't disagree with you. For better or for worse, it's pretty standard with most "blockbuster" films these days. I recall thinking during the second Indiana Jones film, when Indie is running along the mine-cart tracks being shot at, how unbelievable it is that he does not get hit. Even if all of those shooting were the worst shots in the world, the law of averages would dictate that some bullets would hit him. Much the same thought occurred to me recently when I watched the first Star Wars film again and wondered at the inept marksmanship of the Imperial Stormtroopers firing on Luke and Leia in the corridors of the Death Star. And the same issue occurs in FotR when the Fellowship come under a hail of Orcish arrows as they run from the Bridge of Khazad-Dum.

I think that it's much easier to get away with this in films, "bloskbuster" films at least, because they are much more immediate. One can get swept up in the action and have less time to think about the logic of the situation. It is far more important for books to maintain credibility because the reader has time to pause for thought.

But you are right. There are things in the films that don't make sense when you stop and think about them (although I would not necessarily include the Gandalf/Witch-King scene in that category, for the reasons that I have stated on that thread). What can I say? Maybe I just don't think about these things so deeply. I don't think that one is supposed to with these kinds of films.

Originally Posted by Aina

So I watched it from front to back and I was horrified. The original flowyness, the perfect dialog, sounds, and characters, destroyed with the few new added scenes.

Maybe you are just too used to the original. If one is used to a certain "pattern", then it is bound to seem strange if that pattern is disturbed in any way.