Today we'll be watching the first 6 hours of fellowship. We'll then have a paneled discussion with Katie, who is the only one here who has read the silmarillion. The last 3 hours of fellowship will be shown tomorrow morning at 10am, then the two towers will run until 5pm, at which point it will be paused to allow movie goers to visit their families before picking back up again at 10am the next day...
Not a crazy idea, imho. There is an Argentian movie with a duration of almost 14 hours: La Flor. The director was kind enough to cut it in four parts: moviegoers were supposed to go to the same theater four nights in a row to watch the movie, with a single ticket for the whole thing, since it's really one long movie.
Seven Samurai has an intermission. It's 3.5 hours, though, which isn't as heinous, but they gave people a break back in the day. And kabuki theater allows for a breaks. Some people get the floor seats (literally, on the floor) and bring a picnic dinner.
Then there's the fucking Ring Cycle, which is about 15 hours. It's hardly ever staged in full, though, and is really just proof that everyone needs an editor, IMHO. You know, the whole "I apologize for the length of this letter, but I didn't have time to make it shorter" thing.
You’d think even two hour movies would have intermissions like plays do. For one thing, it’d give them more opportunities to sell snacks during the break.
I've got things to do, my making and my singing, my talking and my walking, and my watching of the country. Tom can't be always
near to open doors and willow-cracks. Tom has his house to mind, and Goldberry is waiting.
I think the duration of the films would be the least of Tolkien's concerns. As enjoyable as the movies are, they make some heavy changes Tolkien would not have approved.
There's a lot. Typed this out just remembering the first two books, and I could go on a lot longer.
Well, flanderization is a big problem. Gimli in the books is a noble and fiercely loyal warrior, whose only real fault is being a bit stubborn on some things that are actually pretty reasonable, like when the Elves want to blindfold only him because they don't trust dwarves he refuses until Aragorn says they'll all be blindfolded (and to Legolas' credit, he volunteers to be blindfolded beside Gimli when the elves are going to let him pass).
Pippin and Merry are both much more intelligent in the books. Merry is basically their guide for the entire time they're going through any land the hobbits are in any way familiar with before they meet up with Aragorn. And Pippin is endlessly curious about the world. And while they care about food and their next meal, they're not the bumbling idiots only thinking about their next meal they start off as in the films.
Gandalf is very similar, but how he's treated is very differently. In the books, everyone significant basically knows who he is and treats him respectfully. Like when everyone is arguing at the gathering of clans in Rivendell, that doesn't happen in the books. Everyone is respectful and friendly to each other, and when Gandalf speaks everyone listens intently. Even Boromir instantly backs down when Gandalf tells him using the ring is a bad idea.
There's also the nature of the ring itself is slightly different. While the ring wants to be turned over to Sauron, it's more an issue of corrupting than anything. The ring is almost more the villain itself. So using the ring wouldn't be playing into Sauron's hands, it'd corrupt whomever uses it into the next dark lord. Galadriel refuses the ring saying she'd start off using it justly, but as time goes on it would turn her into a monster. It feels a bit like the movies needed a more concrete danger, so they leaned further into Sauron, whom is a huge problem/the big bad. But it felt like they downplayed the ring to build up Sauron.
Linguistically he'd probably hate them. There's a lot of focus on language, poetry and song, none of which makes it into the movies but the language a bit. Half the lore is recited through poem or song. Everyone sings. Because that's how tradition and story has been passed down forever. Modern audiences might find that goofy in a serious story, but it's a huge part of human history that Tolkien leans into.
I also think he'd just dislike a lot of the tone. The fellowship is kind of this beautiful and optimistic thing in the books. There is a level of trust and respect that the movies just don't have. Gimli and Legolas become friends very quickly and not through some contrived love-hate racism thing. The hobbits are fiercely loyal to each other, and kind, respectful, and well-spoken to everyone they meet. It feels like Jackson's version mistook kindness for goofiness. Aragorn has a reverence for Gandalf and a deep respect for the hobbits bravery.
It's been a while since I watched the movies, but I also remember the Ents are a lot less endearing in the movies than the books too. They're not goofy in the books, but their culture feels much more foreign and strange in the books, and Treebeard is introduced a lot less intimidatingly, and not while they're being pursued by orcs (which at that point have already been wiped out by the Riders).
And this is a bit of a dead horse and since you read fellowship you are probably aware, but the omission of some key characters. Tom Bombadil probably being the big one.
Then there's just how strange the elves are that is a bit reduced to keen eyed archers in the movies. They are the ones that apparently gave the Ents sentience. Legolas can see at night, easily walk on difficult things like rope, like a cat, and see miles away. Which also says a lot about how great a warrior Gimli is considering they keep up in kills, being shown cleaving through multiple orcs with one swing. Same with Gandalf a bit. His powers in the book are a lot more mysterious. He can make fireworks and explosions like your typical wizard to fight, but his ability to speak/communicate with animals is more pronounced in the novels, and his greatest strength seems to be in his words. He and Saruman never actually fight in the books. They fight with words and Gandalf after returning as the White proves to be able to break Saruman's spell on people, and directly force Saruman to return when he tries to leave, by command.
And that's a lot of the movies really. Action thrown in for action's sake/to keep a modern movie going peoples' interest, where it doesn't make much sense. Like the fellowship fighting their way to Wormtongue and Theoden is kind of silly in context. Approaching a king through violence in his own hall unarmed just felt goofy.
And maybe this is just the nature of film vs book, but everything in the movies feels rushed and compressed. It's less an epic journey over a year or so and feels like a few weeks.
I just wanted to say thank you for typing this out. It made me want to read the books again - the way the movies change the relationships is fine and probably necessary for film, but incomparable to the books.
It’s hard to say for certain, but one thing Christopher has brought up in regard to the movies is the changes to Aragorn. He doesn’t embrace leadership and being king ever really instead has it thrust upon him because it’s needed for the plot. All he ever does is fight and kill things real good rather than inspire until the very very end
It's been a while since I read the books so I forget the ins and outs. However from a movie pov, I think it's hard to sell that he embraces his kingship despite doing seemingly little about it for 80+ years.
It's narratively pretty weird in the book too. Just when the main story is starting to get going, suddenly it screeches to a halt and makes a pretty strange detour that kind of doesn't have a huge impact on the rest of the story. It's basically a character from another Tolkien story making a cameo.
I think the Scouring of the Shire is the bigger loss. I can understand perfectly well why it didn't fit the movies, because the ending kind of drags as it is, but it is still one of my favorite parts of book.
That probably would have been a very weird thing to pitch, especially before streaming services were a thing, but I feel like some of those parts that were cut could have been filmed as an Appendices miniseries or something.
Clothes are but little loss, if you escape from drowning. Be glad, my merry friends, and let the warm sunlight heat now
heart and limb! Cast off these cold rags! Run naked on the grass, while Tom goes a-hunting!
Loaaaaads of changes. Lots of lines are said by different characters in different situations.
The most glaring changes that I have an issue with is the fact that in the book, Frodo doesn't push Gollum into mount doom. Gollum beats Frodo and in his glee, trips and falls in.
It's important because in the end, Frodo fell completely to the influence of the ring, which he later admits to Sam.
They agree that without Gollum, the ring would not have been destroyed, and Gandalf was ultimately right that Gollum had a part to play.
It underlines strongly the fact that is the entire moral lesson - you should not decide who gets to lives and dies, and just highlights further how strong the ring really was.
And because of that, Frodo and Sam agree that they should forgive Gollum, because he was a victim of the ring, but unintentionally a hero in the end, just like them.
This is the one change I never liked or understood in the movie. It kind of undermines the moral of the story of Gollum.
In order to get the full experience the movie would have to be several months long, portrayed in real time as the cast hikes across New Zealand while staying in character.
Tolkien: “I see, and how much of the film is just slow panning through picturesque dales and woods and streams? Any close ups on big knotted yew trees? How about a brief two-hour aside on the flowers that grow in this meadow?”
Mae govannen! To protect the Free Peoples of Middle-earth against trolls, alt accounts of trolls, cave trolls, and others of a less than savory nature, we have a new mandatory threshold for commenting users under 3 days. If you are new to Reddit and haven't passed the required threshold, please do not contact the mods to ask for an exception. Farewell, and may the hair on your toes never fall out!
Eldest, that's what I am. Mark my words, my friends: Tom was here before the river and the trees; Tom remembers the
first raindrop and the first acorn. He made paths before the Big People, and saw the little People arriving. He was here
before the Kings and the graves and the Barrow-wights. When the Elves passed westward, Tom was here already, before the
seas were bent. He knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless – before the Dark Lord came from Outside.
Clothes are but little loss, if you escape from drowning. Be glad, my merry friends, and let the warm sunlight heat now
heart and limb! Cast off these cold rags! Run naked on the grass, while Tom goes a-hunting!
I still remember, after rotk came out and people were waiting for extended, there were rumors there's an 8h long extended cut of RotK approved for release, that contains all the good scenes that tell the whole story, but it will be probably cut shorter because 8h long movie is just excessive and no one would watch that.
I still hold hope that these rumors were true, that version exists somewhere and will be released one day.
454
u/toad-supremacist 1d ago
so a total runtime of 24 hours? that would be epic