I guess that’s it. There are alot of people who didn’t know that. I thought it was the first episode in a trilogy, not the first piece of one book ripped in three. Im sure I will LOVE the story presented by all three movies - and the music, visuals, casting, etc are great. But it’s a real shock when you sit down and make the reasonable assumption offered by the way the material is presented that you will know the fate of the ring when you get up from the chair in three hours and are left gap-jawed when the credits roll.
BTW, did Tolkien absolutely freak when his publisher’s told him they were splitting up his novel? I can’t think of any artist that wouldn’t unless he was pot-boiling, which it’s pretty safe to say he wasn’t.
The major plot of LotR:Fellowship of the Ring, is right there in the title; the Fellowship of the ring. That is the major plot of the first movie, the Ring is actually secondary to the fellowship for this part of the story. It is the motivation, not the plot, here. In fact, the destruction of the ring is never the main plot of any of the three volumes individually. It could be argued that it is not the main plot of the overall arc of the three volumes, but that would be I think simplifying things too much. The first Volume is about the creation and life of the fellowship, that is its plot, and that is where it ends, with the death of the fellowship. The second volume is about the fight against Saruman and Aragorn coming into his own (Approached differently in the movie, but the basic plot is still the same, for it is here that Aragorn declares himself fully.) One person mentioned that in this volume, Frodo’s journey is basically static, and that is in part because his subplot still isn’t yet ready to move towards the climax of the total work. I would not be surprised to find out that books III and V originally were together, and IV and VI came after them, because it is in Book VI that Frodo’s plot comes to its climax, in IV it is more a place holder. The third Volume’s plot can be seen as the rise of Aragorn, and the restoration of Gondor, with the Ring’s destruction being again basically the motivation. Frodo’s plot one learns here isn’t the destruction of the ring, but the saving of the Shire.
Star Wars is not about a farm boy who goes to avenge his adoptive parents deaths at the hands of the antagonists, that is the farm boys motivation, but the plot is about a young man coming of age, and the overall plot of the 3 films is heros fighting against an evil empire.
But the whole purpose of creating the Fellowship was to take the Ring to the Mordor to destroy it. Without emphasizing that the ring must be destroyed and that it must be destroyed at Mt. Doom, there is no reason for the Fellowship to embark on the quest.
I’ve read opinions several times that American filmgoers want everything served up on a silver platter and tied up with a bow. I’ve read complaints that films don’t make people think. I know that there are a lot of people who haven’t read Tolkien. But IMO LotR was made for those who have. I don’t see anything wrong with audiences having to do a little homework. There is a certain level of knowledge that a person must have for virtually any film, (the idea of Good and Evil, the fact that WWII happened, the knowledge that Civil War generals could not call in air support – even Star Wars viewers needed to understand the concept of energy weapons and artificial intelligence) and LotR just requires that people understand that it’s a long story that cannot be told in a single film.
I’ve enjoyed films and have heard people say, “[Valley Girl]That’s stupid! I mean, like, they didn’t even…[/Valley Girl]” In those cases I had to shake my head sadly and imagine that the person’s pool of experience or depth of knowledge was a bit on the shallow side.
I assure you, KidCharlemagne, I do not intend to insult you; but I can see how you would be offended by that last paragraph. I’m sorry. But I think that audiences who don’t know that TFotR is only the first episode of an epic should seek to understand what they’re getting into.
> A plot typical deals with events, with the characters themselves
> being relatively unchanged at the end.
and
> A storyline places an emphasis on the development or
> disintegration of character.
These are your personal definitions which have little to do with the way that these terms are usually used. Furthermore, there’s no necessary connection between the length of a novel or a movie and whether the story is driven more by events (a “plot,” in your terminology) or by character development (a “storyline,” in your terminology). Most of us get by just fine without having to be told before reading a novel or watching a movie whether the story will be event- or character-driven.
> I don’t think alot of people get that the lord of the
> rings “trilogy” isn’t a trilogy, it’s a marketing gimmick. So by
> agreeing that you think Fellowship of the Rings is complete
> your letting a publisher’s marketing group write your stories.
It wasn’t a “marketing gimmick” to divide the book into three volumes when it was originally published. When Allen & Unwin decided to publish the book in 1954, Rayner Unwin was worried that if he published the book as a single volume that he would spend so much on it that he would drive Allen & Unwin into bankruptcy. He was actually resigned to the fact that the book wouldn’t sell very well and would probably lose money. There wasn’t a big set of fans awaiting the book’s publication. There weren’t even that many people who remembered the publication of The Hobbit (which was 17 years earlier). Far from being a clever “marketing gimmick” to increase the number of books sold, the reason that he broke the book up into three volumes was that it was the only way he could publish a book that he liked but he didn’t think anyone else would.
Johnny LA,
I’ve already said that the “needing a movie to have everything tied up with a bow” does not remotely apply here. That applies to a COMPLETE story wherein people can’t deal with ambiguous endings. That is not the case here. This is one third of a fricking movie. Tolkien would ROLL OVER IN HIS GRAVE if he thought people considered the Fellowship of the Ring to be complete in and of itself. Any writer would.
I agree with everything else you said in the post - but, yeah, I need a plot. I really do. Completely resolved plot, no. Standard format plot, no. But a plot is essential. The movie must have a plot or else, for me, it isn’t worth seeing.
Kid, I guess my tone wasn’t obvious enough in my post (do I need to put a resolution to that too? “This is a joke.”? :p), but it was intended as a joke.
Oh, you’re so cute when you’re trying to be haughty.
Indeed. But it contained other plot points, as well. For example, the temptation of using the ring… most of the plot in FOTR focused on this, right from the beginning when Frodo offered the ring to Gandalf (“You cannot offer me this ring!”) to when Frodo offered it to Aragorn. It was the ring’s temptation of others that caused Frodo to leave the Fellowship. Thus, was that plot point resolved at the end of the movie.
Another: The plight of Minas Tirith. The primary group of people opposing the forces of Mordor, who had all their hopes resting on Boromir. His death signified the death of their hope. Another plot point resolved. Furthermore, Boromir’s death coincided with his acknowledgement that Aragorn is his king… a resolution of sorts to the unsurity that Aragorn has as to his lineage.
Basically, you are receiving criticism because you are seeing this movie in a very shallow manner… “It’s all about destroying the ring.” It isn’t. It’s about the end of the ancient magical world, where elves are dominant and everything’s happy and bright. It’s about the rise of Man to regain their former glory. It’s about death, life, rebirth, and all those other nifty things.
The quest to destroy the ring was the PURPOSE for forming the Fellowship. To de-emphasize that would have people wondering, “Wait, why are they forming this band again?”
Frankly, in my opinion, you’re being critical of this movie just to be critical of it. I’ve seen this before… a movie becomes popular, so someone wants to gain notoriety by being the first to point out some glaring error or somesuch. In the process, they gloss over the parts of the movie that counter their criticism.
Actually, this is not right from the beginning. The discussion and decision of destroying the ring does not even happen until halfway through the movie (at the Council of Elrond). The first half of the movie is all about Frodo realizing what he has, and getting out of the Shire and safely to Rivendell. Nobody is on a quest to destroy the ring in the first half of the movie.
One thing you may not realize about the book (but another poster alludes to) is that the original chapter headings and section headings (which I assume are Tolkien’s, unless the publisher that split it into three is also playing at other tricks) actually split the story into 6 “books”, with headings “Book I”, “Book II”, etc.
Book I covers the events surrounding the discovery that it is the one ring, the flight of the hobbits from the shire, the pursuit by the black riders – in all, the struggle to get to the safety of Rivendell.
Book II covers the actual “Fellowship” – the journey of the band of 9, up to the point at which the fellowship breaks.
“The Two Towers” contains Books III and IV – one focuses on the other companions (Aragorn, Legolas, etc), and the other focuses on Sam and Frodo – now that the original “fellowship” has separated.
The last one has Books V and VI. Each “book” is a separate segment of the story. No, none of them are completely self-contained in terms of the entire plot – which I agree with Narile that the real plot of the entire LOTR story is the fight against evil (primarily Sauron and Mordor, but also Saruman), and not only the ring’s destruction. If it were only the ring’s destruction, there would be no need for reading Book III and Book V (the ones that are not focusing on Frodo, who has the ring).
But the movie is really not about getting the band together. There are no trials and tribulations of getting them together – that is decided pretty quickly after the council in Rivendell. This part of the story (which is the second half of the movie) really focuses on the journey – trying to get to Mordor. And without the decision at the council to try to destroy the ring, there is no reason to embark on the journey.
Also note that the entire movie is not about the fellowship. Just the second half (corresponding to Book II). Perhaps in this, the publishers that originally split the story into three volumes did a disservice, because the title “Fellowship of the Ring” could be seen as applying only to the Book II portion (the second half of the volume). There is no fellowship of 9 in Book I – it hasn’t been formed yet.
Well, now I’m not quite sure how you feel about it now, because in the OP you did actually say:
*Seriously this is far and away the most ridiculous movie I have ever seen. *
I think most people would take that as a synonymous phrase with “It sucked”. (not said with mockery, just with amusement)
Although I am getting the feeling that the biggest problem is that it took you by surprise – you were expecting a complete resolution and had not heard that it was really a story told over three movies. Understandable, actually – I know several people who were taken off guard the same way, having no prior knowledge of the story.
And no, you don’t have to have read the book to understand the movie. The story is told well enough that it can be followed. It was just a matter of not having heard (from the publicity, or whatever) that it was a 3 part deal.
BTW, I don’t think anybody here thinks that Fellowship of the Ring is complete by itself. It isn’t. And it wasn’t meant to be. That fact just happened to surprise some people who hadn’t yet gotten the memo.
So, does this mean that now that you know it’s in three parts, you might like it and not think it ridiculous any more? I hope you’ll read the book some day, too. It really is quite a work – not just the LOTR story itself, but all of the back story and history of Middle Earth that Tolkien created along with it.
I liken FOTR to the movie Stand By Me… where a bunch of kids decide to go see a dead body for some reason. When they finally get there, everything just stops. The primary aspects of the movie focus on the getting there… the journey, as Monstre mentioned. The end result of FOTR is showing how the Fellowship as a group brought the ring as far as it could, but ultimately had to split up.
Except for those whole messy “Destruction of the Empire”/“Redemption of Darth Vader” things.
So if you’re allowing “macro plots” (to use your versions of those terms), think of it this way.
The “Plot” of “LOTR: Fellowship” was for Frodo to learn the true nature of the ring and accept responsiblity for carrying it despite the “macro-plot” of “destroy the ring”. (Like in Star Wars, Luke comes of age, blows up the Death Star and learns to trust the Force, but there’s the bigger “macro plot” of Destroy the Empire.)
Hell, using your definitions, Star Wars resolves less than LotR:Fellowship: Frodo becomes the Ring-Bearer about 2/3s of the way through the movie: Luke doesn’t become a full-fledged Jedi-Knight until midway through Return, so the “Farmboy becomes Jedi” ‘storyline’ (to use your term) just dangles out there for 2 1/2 movies.
The book is deceptively simple. Protagonist is thrust into hero role and undertakes quest to defeat evil. I don’t know how to do the spoiler thingy, but for those who do not know the outcome, avert your eyes: quest is eventually accomplished after becoming more, and more and more desparate. However, notice that hero fails in the quest. He is overcome by the temptation of evil at the very end, and the quest is only saved by a bad character. I like to think of Frodo, Sam and Gollum as Superego, Ego and Id respectively. Superego is itself overcome by the temptation, and is only saved by basest Id while Ego stands by helplessly and watches. Superego is appalled at his failure and never recovers fully, leaving Ego in the real world in charge of the house and kids and goes off to the land of myth.
In the interim of this overall story arc, there are sprinkled tidbits from throughout great literature. The Scouring of the Shire is Odessus returning to Ithaca. The ring itself is Moby Dick. Isildur’s failure to destroy the ring is the old myth of the Grail King.
The movie did have to make a lot of compromises in adapting to the screen, and we will probably see more in TT. Frodo and Sam’s part in TT is a symbolic journey, and so far Jackson is making an action pic with some Elvish stopovers. I am interested to see how he handles this part. The only part that I thought could definitely have been done better was Galadriel’s silvery witch bug out scene, which I would have like to have been done with just subtle acting. I would also have staged the fight on the bridge differently: I would have moved the camera around Gandalf from 9 'oclock to 3 o’clock as Gandalf spoke his lines and when I got to 3 o’clock, I would have backed the camera off as he destroyed the bridge. I would not have had him scream/shout the line, but rather simply had the voice project and carry.
I’m glad you said that. Pearl Harbor is a perfect example of a movie that just went way too far and tried to resolve too much. Are we (American moviegoers) so dumb that we need a happy “Yay, we bombed Tokyo” ending to a movie about a nearly catastrophic defeat?
Come on, we KNOW the Japanese won the battle at Pearl Harbor. Doolitle’s raid doesn’t belong tagged onto it. I’m surprised they didn’t do an Animal House-style epilogue.
“Ben Affleck went on to play a decisive role in the battle of Midway, single-handedly sinking three Japanese carriers, and three years later piloted Enola Gay over the Japanese mainland and dropped the first Atomic Bomb, winning the war.”
Fellowship went exactly as far as it needed to, to make the movie watchable. If you’re shocked that the story isn’t over, well, 60 years is too long to expect spoiler warnings.
Well…Perhaps I was poorly expressing myself. I was refering, for instance, to the kind of movie showing the rather ordinary life of someone, its little joys and sorrows. Or showing the mechanisms at work in a family, a social group, etc… Movies which certainly have a point , which can have a closure, even possibly a dramatic one, but not necessarily a plot.
LotR: FotR has an ambiguous ending? Say what? Boromir dies. Merry and Pippin are kidnapped. Frodo and Sam head to Mordor on their own. Legolas, Gimli, and Aragorn race to rescue Merry and Pippin. How the hell is that ambiguous?
And what is all this about the need for closure in the movie? You rant and rave about the need for the Ring to be destroyed at the end of the movie. Well if you want the One Ring to be destroyed at the end of the movie then you saying the The Lord of the Rings should have been made into one 3-4 hour movie. If you are advocating that LotR’s be made into one movie then you are saying it is ok to omit huge chunks of the story, which would make the movie utterly unwatchable. Frankly your idea stinks KidCharlemagne! Pop in that Steely Dan CD and stop your inane movie reviews.
I hope you’ll read the book some day, too. It really is quite a work – not just the LOTR story itself, but all of the back story and history of Middle Earth that Tolkien created along with it.