I notice that often times the arguements between the purists and the movie fans run circles around the same issue, yet always fail to address it. So I thought I'd start a thread where we could discuss this, head on.
Basically what I want to get at is this: What would be the absolute ideal version of a LotR movie, in your opinion? You don't have to get into specific scenes, but just talk about how one might go about making it. Forget logistics here, forget studios, forget all of that. We're talking about an ideal.
However, I do believe that two limits aught to be made here. One, time limits. I think, just from an artistic stand-point, that no movie should go beyond 3 1/2 hours, 4 at the absolute most. If you believe that LotR aught to be made in more then 3 movies, state so. The second limit, the way I see it, should be accessibility. This doesn't necessarily mean "dumbing down" the movie, but just making a movie that someone with absolutely no knowledge of LotR can approach, understand, and hopefully enjoy and be moved by. The movie shouldn't assume it's audience to have any previous knowledge about anything.
------------------
So, what would I do? Just generally speaking, I think having 3 movies is a good format. I also believe that 3 1/2 hours, done right, is plenty for each movie. Here is where I think I defer from PJ, however. Instead of changing scenes, which PJ does so often, I'd follow this rule: If at all possible, scenes should only be cut, not changed. In other words, I'd cut as many scenes as seems necessary, but I wouldn't actually add anything. Perhaps, for a few scattered occasions, I'd move dialogue around a bit from one scene to another, as PJ does quite often. But that would be used sparringly. And here is the key part: Keep the dialogue the same!!!. Maybe it's just me, but I'm of the opinion that Tolkiens dialogue is perfection. It is so flawless, witty, and elegant, that I don't see the point in changing it, or trying to modernize it. I feel that Tolkien "modernized" it as is, meaning that it wasn't all written in old English (which might have been the case, were he writting it a hundred years earlier). I'll admit, some of Tolkiens passages of dialogue are way too long for film. But remember what I said: cut, don't change. As such, this would simply become a matter of squeezing out the most important pieces of dialogue from each exchange, and leaving out the elements that aren't suitable for film.
There is a certain level where I feel changes, indeed additions, are appropriate. This is rarely in the dialogue department, however. For example, I thought the begginning of the movie, with Frodo joining Gandalf on the cart, was a perfect way to introduce both charachters, and much more cinematic then the book. These kind of changes are great, indeed they add to the movie, without actually deminishing anything. The real key here, in my opinion, is to use Tolkiens dialogue. There is something about the feel of his wording that is extremely distinct and recognizable. I think it would just be bliss to have a movie as visually and aurally beautiful as PJ's, with the actors speaking Tolkiens exact words.
Basically what I want to get at is this: What would be the absolute ideal version of a LotR movie, in your opinion? You don't have to get into specific scenes, but just talk about how one might go about making it. Forget logistics here, forget studios, forget all of that. We're talking about an ideal.
However, I do believe that two limits aught to be made here. One, time limits. I think, just from an artistic stand-point, that no movie should go beyond 3 1/2 hours, 4 at the absolute most. If you believe that LotR aught to be made in more then 3 movies, state so. The second limit, the way I see it, should be accessibility. This doesn't necessarily mean "dumbing down" the movie, but just making a movie that someone with absolutely no knowledge of LotR can approach, understand, and hopefully enjoy and be moved by. The movie shouldn't assume it's audience to have any previous knowledge about anything.
------------------
So, what would I do? Just generally speaking, I think having 3 movies is a good format. I also believe that 3 1/2 hours, done right, is plenty for each movie. Here is where I think I defer from PJ, however. Instead of changing scenes, which PJ does so often, I'd follow this rule: If at all possible, scenes should only be cut, not changed. In other words, I'd cut as many scenes as seems necessary, but I wouldn't actually add anything. Perhaps, for a few scattered occasions, I'd move dialogue around a bit from one scene to another, as PJ does quite often. But that would be used sparringly. And here is the key part: Keep the dialogue the same!!!. Maybe it's just me, but I'm of the opinion that Tolkiens dialogue is perfection. It is so flawless, witty, and elegant, that I don't see the point in changing it, or trying to modernize it. I feel that Tolkien "modernized" it as is, meaning that it wasn't all written in old English (which might have been the case, were he writting it a hundred years earlier). I'll admit, some of Tolkiens passages of dialogue are way too long for film. But remember what I said: cut, don't change. As such, this would simply become a matter of squeezing out the most important pieces of dialogue from each exchange, and leaving out the elements that aren't suitable for film.
There is a certain level where I feel changes, indeed additions, are appropriate. This is rarely in the dialogue department, however. For example, I thought the begginning of the movie, with Frodo joining Gandalf on the cart, was a perfect way to introduce both charachters, and much more cinematic then the book. These kind of changes are great, indeed they add to the movie, without actually deminishing anything. The real key here, in my opinion, is to use Tolkiens dialogue. There is something about the feel of his wording that is extremely distinct and recognizable. I think it would just be bliss to have a movie as visually and aurally beautiful as PJ's, with the actors speaking Tolkiens exact words.
Last edited:
