Adapting Lord of the Rings

Yes Figgy but, it was great mickey take fodder for youtube ?

Lotrs by numbers.









http://tigatog.tumblr.com/post/129648244312/by-the-numbers-the-lord-of-the-rings-films

99 nazgul screeches?
35 smokes of pipeweed?

Much higher than I would have thought.

And someone actually tallied these up ? ok, if its a rainy Sunday afternoon, why not

Thought that might've been LOTR Project at first. Interesting numbers if true. Not gonna invest the time to try to verify them myself though.

There are also evidently a bunch of closeups of people being teary-eyed or crying.

There are also evidently a bunch of closeups of people being teary-eyed or crying..................................


Dont tell me, they saw The Hobbshit !

"Legolas narrows his eyes 83 majestic times."

22 Frodo falls down....................

only 22 ?

Don't forget the one Nagual screech for each film.

Loud N clear Captain !

or the 10000 wrong grass lengths

Minimum!

Don't forget the one Nagual screech for each film. - Nagual

Only 1 per film- that seems rather few considering you cant even bear to sit through my edited versions let alone PJ's originals.

Is it one screech per film because each screech lasts for an entire film?

It's been years since I watched the movies all the way through, but these numbers seem inflated.

Well, there's your excuse to watch them again... with a notebook.

I'm still working my way through my LOTR EE rewatch (more on that in the appropriate thread soon, I hope), but I've been trying to just enjoy the films as an experience and overthink them later.

Does anyone prefer the way the book tells the story. The way it has book 3 dedicated to one part of the fellowship and book 4 dedicated to Frodo and Sam.
Or would you prefer the movie version where it sort of goes toe to toe with each group?
Like chapter 1, 2 and 3 from book 3 followed by chapter 1, 2 and 3 from book 4. and so on.

As you can see, English wasn't my best subject at school, but I'm sure you get the gist of what I'm on about.

We might have had this discussion before, but i couldn't find it. Could have been in the old forum.

Cursory glance coming up

chris63 wrote:Does anyone prefer the way the book tells the story. The way it has book 3 dedicated to one part of the fellowship and book 4 dedicated to Frodo and Sam.
Or would you prefer the movie version where it sort of goes toe to toe with each group?
Like chapter 1, 2 and 3 from book 3 followed by chapter 1, 2 and 3 from book 4. and so on.

As you can see, English wasn't my best subject at school, but I'm sure you get the gist of what I'm on about.

I think it works well in the book, the more leisurely pacing and expanse of the novel gives the story room to breath and makes Books 3/4 5/6 feel almost like their own individual story the books are so well known by the time the films came out I think everyone just accepted Tolkiens unusual structure as one of the quirks of the novel. However I don't think this approach would have worked in a 3 hour film it would make things feel too compressed/slow paced, cross cutting between the different strands of the story makes things less confusing for casual viewers, tightens the main threads of the story together, and also helps to raise tension in the edit.

Both approaches work well in their respective mediums, the book as written is unfilmable but Jackson's cross cutting worked well at telling the version he wanted to.

Of the two approaches I personally prefer the book-although I had seen the films several times before I read the book, I wasn't aware of all of the un-filmed events/characters from the book, keeping the Fellowship/Frodo+Sam segments largely separate for so long made for more interesting/dramatic reading as you could really get inside the characters heads and didn't know when the twists were coming.

They discussed this in the appendices. Boyens actually made a good point (keep those knives sheathed!) when she said it works for him in the books because the reader is kept in the dark as to what is happening with the other characters in the same way the characters themselves are. They felt they had to cross-cut in the movie in order to not confuse the watchers with timelines. Tolkien's solution was to insert quick asides as to what was going on with other characters when he felt it was needed, but that wouldn't really work in the film medium.

{{Cross cutting has its own issues- especially in the films- in fact I would say the decision to do so is the fundamental structural flaw to the TT and RoTK films.

The main issue arises from the two stories lines not being equal in content or characters.
The upshot of this is that it takes longer on screen to tell the the tale of Aragorn and co than it does Frodo and co.

In the TT films this meant, as they were finishing the film after Helms Deep there was nothing for Frodo and co do to and no big conflict or climax to end their line on- the changes to Faramir and indeed the completely pointless last twenty minutes of Frodo and co exists purely as filler, its just there to pad out the Frodo line to a climax of sorts in order to match it up with the other story line. This means that they waste 20 mins of story time with Frodo and Sam, on a made up story that in my view is also nonsensical and adds nothing to the overall narrative, and then have to leave out actual book story stuff later with them because there is no longer time for it.

The upshot of all that is they have to cram all the Frodo and co stuff that is in the TT book into the RotK film because relative timewise that's when those things actually happen. This of course means there is a huge squeeze on time in RotK and lots of secondary characters get burnt and thrown out and lots of other characters get simplified and plot gets simplified in order to fit it in.

The issues with intercutting therefore are that the story lines are not equal in content or characters, and that when things are happening at the same time its not a good time narratively to cut between them.

If it had been me I think I would have been tempted to follow Tolkiens method for TT and half of RotK then intercut the final half of RotK- as you do have a genuine simultaneous climax there with the Black Gate and Mt Doom. }}}

"If it had been me I think I would have been tempted to follow Tolkiens method for TT and half of RotK then intercut the final half of RotK- as you do have a genuine simultaneous climax there with the Black Gate and Mt Doom. " - petty

If I recall correctly you did and it worked One of the more interesting elements of your edits in my opinion. Not sure how an all-Frodo/Sam movie would have been received by the so-called masses, though.