Ummmm, I just saw the movie. Ummmmm, did I only get one of the CDs or something? How can the major plot point not be resolved by the end? I know it’s a trilogy, but in every other trilogy I’ve ever read the individual stories could stand on their own. Is this considered a serial? Seriously this is far and away the most ridiculous movie I have ever seen. Weren’t people not familiar with the story as dumbfounded as I was?
No, you saw it right. It was originally written as one book, then split into three because in the early 50s the publisher saw no market for such a huge book. Makes no sense to me, but it is easier to carry around.
…How big was that rock you were under?
The Lord of the Rings is not a trilogy. A trilogy is a set of three novels that are connected in some way. The Lord of the Rings is a single novel that was published originally in three volumes. You say that you’ve read other trilogies. So why haven’t you read The Lord of the Rings, which is vastly better than the garbage that’s sold as fantasy trilogies (and even longer series) these days?
All 3 movies were essentially filmed at once, so it’s really one giant movie. It’s being released in 3 segments because no theatre would book a nine-hour movie. Just think of it as having a couple of really, really long intermissions. 
So no, neither the book nor the movie are “trilogies.” They’re each one long work that’s been split into three purely for convenience.
I liked the movie, but agree that a bit o’ fancy writing and structuring could have made it more insular, and given the audience at least a feeling of completion while letting them know the story will go on. The Star Wars films, especially Empire Strikes Back, did this pretty well.
Even if this sort of dead-stop/cliffhanger ending is how the books played out, I still don’t think it applies, given that written narrative and cinema are two totally different animals and adaptation, not replication, is the key to success.
Well cinemas used to be filled with cliffhanging endings. We’ve only forgotten since they basically all went to TV.
And it did have an ending (afterall this was the story of the fellowship), it’s just that it was an ending with expectations.
One of the CDs?
This would have required major changes in the storyline. And a significant part of the intended audience (people who have read and loved the book) would have hated that. It wouldn’t have been “the lord of the rings” but a movie inspired by the LOTR.
Anyway, I must say I’m somewhat irritated that so much people want movies to fit in some standart format. There must be action scenes. There must be a closure. Everything must be explained at the end of the movie. There must be a plot, etc…or else it’s not a real movie, and not worth seeing.
Why do you think the major plot point should be resolved at the end of the first movie, exactly, when the first movie is only one third of the whole thing? Why can’t you enjoy (or dislike) the movie for what it has to offer (acting, visual effects, direction, storyline, music, etc…). If you enjoyed the movie, then fine, you’ll watch the two other parts and the plot will be resolved. If you didn’t enjoy it, then fine, you won’t watch the other parts…
The fact the movie don’t fit in your narrow definition of what a movie should be doesn’t make it a bad or ridiculous movie…
Sorry, ** Keith Berry ** : I began responding to you but actually, most of my comments are directed towards ** Kid Charlemagne **
Clairobscur - Oh please. Don’t throw the “narrow definition of a movie” defense at me because it doesn’t apply here. I never said I didn’t like other aspects of the film nor did I say I wouldn’t like the story when it was fully told. Having said that, this is not a movie - it’s a third of a movie. Just like Wendell Wagner said, this book was split up into thirds yet it’s still called a trilogy, which it isn’t. Even the book publisher’s released the full story at once - it was never intended to be a serial. When I go to a movie I don’t want to be told at the end I have to pony up more money and wait x years to get the whole thing.
Actually, Peter Jackson went to great lengths to “conventionalize” the extremely odd structure Tolkien used to write the book. Jackson started out with the history of the ring so that people would have some grounding about the subject, he throw out about fifty pages of “Life with the Hobbits” that Tolkien started with; he gave backstories to Boromir and Aragorn that don’t get told in the first volume; he increased the emphasis on the action rather than on the world and the journey.
He did everything he reasonably could, but KidCharlemagne is quite correct: FotR is a 400 page unresolved prologue to the rest of the novel. Jackson will need to do considerably more conventionalizing because Tolkien plays down the action scenes in writing in a way movie goers would never stand for, and the Frodo protion of TT (“Book 4”) is almost completely static.
LotR is simply a bizarrely structured novel compared to other 20th century novels. It was never intended to be filmable, and it is not filmable as it stands. Film has its own vocabulary, and Jackson uses it well, but the alternations he’s made to the book all move the story to what most of us as accustomed to as normal. And that’s a good thing. A film true to the structure of the book would be unwatchable.
Maybe what you didn’t understand about the movie would inspire you to actually read the book. I saw The Fellowship of the Ring and then read the LOTR epic, and enjoyed it immensly.
Babar714 - there isn’t anything I didn’t understand - it’s just not complete.
KidCharlemagne writes:
> Just like Wendell Wagner said, this book was split up into thirds
> yet it’s still called a trilogy, which it isn’t. Even the book
> publisher’s released the full story at once - it was never
> intended to be a serial.
I said no such thing. The book is not a trilogy, and only people who don’t know the meaning of the word call it that. The publisher did not release the full story at once. When it was originally published, The Two Towers was released six months after The Fellowship of the Ring, and The Return of the King was released six months after that.
You didn’t answer my question. Why did you waste your time reading fantasy trilogies (and even longer series) when you haven’t read The Lord of the Rings, a much better work. Indeed, don’t see the movies and think that you’ve gotten more than a taste of how good the book is. There’s a lot in the book that can’t work in any movie, no matter how good. In fact, don’t waste your time posting to the SDMB. Read the book.
I had never read “The Lord of the Rings” before watching the movie, and to be honest I thought the movie was exactly as “complete” as it should have been for the first part of a trilogy. The Fellowship went as far as it could, but it broke up. It’s a logical end to Part 1 of 3. Made perfect sense to me.
Because there’s more than one plot point.
No no no! What KidCharlemagne wants is the ring to be destroyed in the first movie, to get rid of that bothersome plot idea so the rest of the movies can fully develop the love story between Arwan and Aragorn as well as insert some social commentary about how movies should all be cut and paste.
The book’s publisher cut it into thirds for a fairly simple economic reason: the book would’ve been too expensive to publish as a single book. When LotR came out, each hardcover volume was (IIRC) $5.00 (I have no idea what the British edition’s cover price was) and until Wollheim forced the issue with his unauthorized paperback editions, the publisher (Houghton-Mifflin?) was pretty clear that there’d be no paperback editions (paperbacks still had a vaguely trashy aura about them in the '50s), rebuffing all offers for publishing them as paperback editions (and somehow also blowing the US Copyright for the three books, so they were in the public domain briefly, hence the unauthorized-by-Tolkien but legal Ace paperbacks)
$5.00 per volume was a pretty hefty sum in the '50s but $15 (or more realistically $12.00, since you’d only have one set of cover art, etc) was unthinkable for a mass-market book.
Cutting it into thirds made it marketable.
Fenris
No no no! What KidCharlemagne wants is the ring to be destroyed in the first movie, to get rid of that bothersome plot idea so the rest of the movies can fully develop the love story between Arwan and Aragorn as well as insert some social commentary about how movies should all be cut and paste.