I have a theory about Lord of the Rings...?

[Puck Bond]

If The Fellowship of the Ring turns out to be great, how will the other two be...I ponder this question to you all, especially the LOTR fans cause I have a theory...that involves greatness and sequels...

The Godfather and The Godfather Part II are considered pretty equal by most people...one came out in 1972 and the other in 1974...being made just two years apart I feel that Coppola was in the zone, keeping the same tone and style, and both are classics...fast forward 16 YEARS later The Godfather Part III comes out...it is considered to be far less greater than the first two....did Coppola loose his edge after 16 years maybe so?

Star Wars 1977, The Empire Strikes Back 1980 and Return of the Jedi 1983 3 years between each one...granted with the scope and vastness of George Lucas' vision...3 years seems fine...all 3 are great films...beloved by Star Wars fans alike...whether Star wars or Empire is better I'm not here to debate that is your opinion...or even if Jedi was your fav whatever...and once again we fast forward 16 Years!! to 1999...and we get The Phantom Menace...now most agree that it didn't have the magic of the first 3 did Lucas loose his edge maybe so?

Ok now my point...if The Fellowship of the Ring is awesome, a classic whatever...will the other two be on or close to the same level...all three films were made at the same time and are coming out in a 3 year span...based on my theory Jackson, should be able to keep the same tone, style, vision with all three films...I am so hoping the first one is awesome!! I call on the LOTR fans, because I haven't read the books, and don't know much about the stories of the 3 films...(Tuuka your help is needed) Do you guys think The Two Towers and Return to the King(not sure if i got those right, i apologize if im wrong) will be as great as the first one if Fellowship is great...? This also depends on what the fans think of the books in particular what are the differences between the three which one is the best...thanks for your help and please tell me what you think?!?!?!

[Tuukka]

Good question.

In my opinion the books getter the further they go. The tone becomes darker and scarier, the action becomes more epic. TTT and ROTK are a lot bigger in scale than FOTR. LOTR basicly has six books that have been put together to three volumes. The two "books" of FOTR tell the same storyline, but TTT tells two separate storylines in books 3 and 4. The two separate storylines will be tied togethere at the end of ROTK (which has books 5 and 6). The film versions of TTT and ROTK will move back and forth between the two storylines, and that might cause some structural problems, since the two storylines are very loosely connected to each other.

But anyway, I do think that the films will remain the same quality all the way. If FOTR will be a great film, then TTT and ROTK will be great films as well.

[Dark Prince]

I have to agree with your theory.

[LordKaruku]

I agree that they will be very stylistically similar, which probably means if the first one is good, we can be almost positive the next two will be as well. I'm curious to see how the three films differ in tone and structure.

Fellowship of the Ring is basically an adventure story... this happens, then this happens, then this happens etc... which are notoriously hard to pull off without feeling rushed. The number of major events which take place are quite large: The Party, Bree, Weathertop, the Ford, the Council of Elrond, Caradras, Moria, Lothlorian, and the final scenes of the book. In between all these events, we will have to be introduced to well over a dozen major characters, plus be told important history taking place in different places and eras. I'm guessing Fellowship is going to feel somewhat rushed and will perhaps be the weakest of the three films.

The Two Towers is focused on a smaller set of events, though larger in scale. I imagine the second film will allot more time for character development and interaction, and will be slower-paced (which should make the action scenes all that better). Assuming the computer-generated Gollum and Treebeard are able to carry their important roles in the story, this could be an intensely powerful film with some terrific acting.

Return of the King is certianly the most epic of the three. It is full of battles, heroism, despair, and all that great stuff that everyone loves. Character arcs naturally come to a head. Depending on how the book's lengthy denouement is translated to film, it also has the potential to be the most emotionally powerful, and if girls fall in love with Elijah Wood or Viggo Mortensen like they did with Leo Dicaprio in Titanic, Return of the King might end up with the highest grosses of the three.

I can't wait to see how each works as an individual film, with a beginning, middle, and end, as well as how they work as one cohesive unit. In only two years and a month, we'll know!

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Lord, im going to have to disagree with on the idea that this film will feel rushed. With the exclusion of Bombadil, the Old Forest, the Barrow-Wights, and shortening of other scenes (Council of Elrond); I highly doubt that this film will feel rushed. Go watch some of PJ`s films and you will notice that he excells at two thinghs above everything else - cinematography, and pacing. Not too mention the fact that the movie will come in at 2 hours and 50 minutes without the credits. Trust me, this film will not feel rushed, in fact, to all of us who have read the book it will probably feel too short.

[jingo]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dumb-Fokker-**:
Trust me, this film will not feel rushed, in fact, to all of us who have read the book it will probably feel too short.</font>

aren't "rushed" and "too short" almost the same thing?

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

No, not really. If something feels rushed (much like Harry Potter) it doesnt really leave you wanting more, it just makes the film feel hollow (much like Harry Potter) but when something is too short, it leaves you wanting more. I dont know, its just me so dont worry too much about it.

[LordKaruku]

I've loved Peter Jackson's work ever since I saw Heavenly Creatures, and I agree he has a great sense of pacing. I'm just worried because he's never tackled a project nearly this immense before, and because so much goes on in Fellowship. I posted just after seeing Harry Potter, and the rushed feel of that was what was on my mind.

We'll know in only 29 days. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif

[rgse]

Because 1 film is good in no way guarantees the sequel will be good.

[Jewbo]

im my opinion peter jackson cant make a bad film.