logo Sign In

Post #93974

Author
bad_karma24
Parent topic
I'm sorry, but I must say this... screw this forum, and screw the entertainment industry
Link to post in topic
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/93974/action/topic#93974
Date created
20-Feb-2005, 11:06 AM
Quote


And what, exactly, do you base this on? Ralph Bakshi did an LOTR movie that was more-or-less an accurate adaptation. Granted, his only covers up to the Battle of Helm's Deep (he ran out of money before he could finish it) but it told the story (and told it well, in my opinion) in about the same length of time it takes to watch Peter Jackson's first LOTR movie.

Secondly, most of the reason the books are so long is because of Tolkien's detailed descriptions, and because of dialogue. In a visual medium, the length of both would be drastically reduced--after all, it's much quicker to SHOW people a vivid landscape than it is to tell them about it, and generally when you hear people actually talking, it's much faster than reading them on a page.

There is, simply put, no basis for the "it would've been a 30 hour movie" claim.



LOTR would have been a lot longer than 30 hours I'm sure. It was estimated that Gone With the Wind, which is about the same length as LOTR (though granted written differently) would have taken 168 hours or so. There is so much in the books that it would have taken a similar amount of time to put it all to film.

Oh, and Bakshi's cartoon was terrible. It was much less accurate than Jackson's version, even if Jackson did change things for his films.