what makes a sellable movie?

[epiph]

so, my friends and i were having this heated discussion yesterday about whether or not, from the stand point of sellability and money making, the changes in lotr:tt were necessary. i maintained that tolkien wrote the story, and there's REASON people love the books. that being tolkien's story. two of my friends maintained that 1. how to we know what makes a movie acceptable to a mass audience? and 2. that the two towers was the most boring book of the three and they liked the movie more than the book (i almost cried at the blasphemy...).

so my question is not really whether or not you liked the two towers, but whether or not you think that the changes made from book to movie were necessary to make it more sellable and appealing to the masses...

[Anita Blake]

well, in some ways the changes were necessary, I suppose you are talking mostly about the love theme bit, and a bit less about the fact that the last several chapters were absent?

In a lot of ways, action movies in particular need to rely on some kind of romantic subplot to keep the audience emotionally invested in the characters. If you can't tell that these violent, warrior types have something in common with you, then why do you care about them? If you don't care about the characters, then what is keeping you in your seat to watch all the cool explosions? A series of nifty fight scenes is, after all, only a series of nifty fight scenes without the characters. You don't want to watch it if you don't care whether one of the characters lives or dies, do you? It might not be entirely true to the words of the book, but it's not entirely false to the ideas and themes in the book.

As for the chapters at the end being missing, i have a sneaking suspicion that there will be a 4000 disk DVD edition coming out soon that will replace all that. :rolleyes: I thought it was really odd that the whole end of the book was absent, but i think the reason for it was the over-abundance of bloody fight scenes. Personally, i thought the movie was almost as bland as the book, because while i like action scenes, there really is a limit to how much battle you can handle in one sitting. chop swing jump slash chop swing jump slash dive jab slash run look up save that guy kill that guy slash chop wave fake jump kill maim destroy blah blah blah. yeah, i get the point. they're fighting in a bloody war. yippee. can we get back to the story now? the thing that most people don't ralize with action scenes is that as soon as a movie goes into an exciting action scene, the plot literally stops. The story cannot move forward until the battle is resolved in some manner, or until the character makes a choice, or wins, or loses. So while the action is all well and good, it does literally stop the movie.

anyhoo.. more later....

[Malcor Sylverwood]

Well, if I understand correctly, some of the ending of TTT goes into the start of ROTK.

-Malcor "Shelob" Sylverwood

[epiph]

actually, i'm more referring to like the changes they made to faramir's character and the "the ring goes to gondor." also with the elves coming to helm's deep (when the trees are really so much cooler), and the ents saying "no we won't fight" and then, in totally, un-entlike fashion, charging into battle. i can deal with the love things, i understand that. but i don't get why they added all that stuff about going to osgililith and the ring wraith and stuff...they could have devoted that time to going to shelob. i understand that they are going to have the end of ttt at the beginning of rotk, but that means that most probably the scouring of the shire will be left out, or at best, glazed over. which i suppose is acceptable since they decided to make the movies center on aragorn instead of the hobbits. but the faramir thing bugs me the most, because it changes the nature of faramir that made him different from boromir. in fact, it is meant to set up faramir's actions in rotk, and it makes me fear rotk.

::edit::
and i know what you mean about the battle scenes, anita. even my bf thought they were too long.

[sir archely]

yeah, definitely to shelob being in there. Unless, of course, Gollum was talking about some other "she." :rolleyes:

I can understand including the romance bit...what i really disliked about it was Faramir. His character was completely destroyed by the movie, and he was mostly turned into another Boromir, which is NOT right. I really don't get why that was done, their little trek back added scenes that weren't in the movie, cut those out and they could have inserted more of the missing stuff. ~shrug~ i could be forgetting something, since it's been a while now, but that's what i remember.

Besides, as we all know, sex sells. Extraordinarily well.

[epiph]

lol, arch, we just spent a similar amount of time typing the same thing...

[sir archely]

damn it. i was beaten.

anyway, i think it's been said that the homecoming is gone for sure. i'm pretty sure they didn't do any filming of that, so it's not likely to be in any DVD edition either, but again, i could be wrong. The fact that Sam gets elven rope as a gift instead of his box o' dirt doesn't bode well.

And....the ents are supposed to fight...they do that in the books. why is that a problem? :confused:

[epiph]

in the book, they decide to fight at the entmeet. in the movie, the decide not to fight at the entmeet, and then rashly, when they see the trees cut down, do decide to fight. which is un-entlike.

[sir archely]

ah, yes, i see what you mean, but i don't think that's as big a deal as faramir's character getting slashed to hell. at least, iirc, the ents work themselves up to a fury in the books too. you know, that whole, "really peaceful race turns ugly and killer when you piss them off, so be damned sure they're on your side" kind of motif. *cough*ogierarejustripoffsofents*cough*

[Anita Blake]

yeah, that weird little bit of pippin going "hey! i have an idea! let's go that way! (oh, i'm such a clever little hobbit to make the ents go to war even with they don't want to!) " that was a little bizarre.

lol, i forgot about all that other stuff epiph, prolly 'cause i didn't think the movie was that great, which was probably related to my general dislike of the book. damn, i still need to read ROTK. *looks at list of books to read piling up* :umm: soon... soon.... :)

[Malcor Sylverwood]

OK, Faramir didn't bother me TOO much, because in the end he was still able to let the ring go--something Boromir could not do.

As for the Ents, I can only think of was to try to up the 'shock' of finding the destruction that Saruman caused.

Anyway, I still prefer FOTR to TTT in movie form. ;)

-Malcor "Wizard" Sylverwood

[sir archely]

yeah, FOTR is way better as a movie. But i know you'll be buying the DVD of TTT malcor. :p

....as will i....

~runs away~

[epiph]

yeah, fotr was like watching the book. they changed too many important parts for ttt to be like that...

[sir archely]

~misses bombadil~

sir "tom" archely

:D

[dark fuschia]

~misses bombadil~

sir "tom" archely

:D


ooohhh yes finally someone with the same qualms as me!

I loved the scenes with Arwen and thought they were a nice touch, but all those endless boring fight scenes meant the sacrifice of many wonderful dialogues (such as Giml and Legolas getting closer) and I just don't understand why! And Faramir, yes the pain is still there when I think of what they did to his character. And Gimli... they made him a laughing stock.. dwarves have the most stamina! not the least...

I don't think the changes they made were nessesary at all, I just think they were a little boys vision of TT rather than an adult vision (which is why they focused on the battles so much). They got lost in the excitement of the computer generated stuff if you ask me. I still love the film, but I think it was a let down after the first one, which was as true to the book as possible. Although maybe I just feel this way cos I was stupid enough to reread the novel right before watching it. A mistake I am not going to make for the third one.

[epiph]

yup. summed it up nicely, wendy. although i didn't like the arwen scenes that much, i could excuse them (and mostly i didn't like them because i can't stand liv tyler and i don't think she makes a very good arwen at all....she doesn't look fresh and young, she looks like someone who parties to much and is aging prematurely). but the battle scenes were too long, and so many of the things they changed took up time that could have been spent with everyone at isengard at the end, or with sam and frodo and shelob. when the movie ended, i was like "wait...it's over?...but it's NOT over!!"

[King Albert]

I think the main reason why changes were made for the movie version of TT is because of the scope of the series. This is not some small, low-budge independent file catering only to LOTR fans. The high production costs mean that sacrifices have to be made to accommodate as many people as possible. More people going to see the movie results in the movie earning more money at the expense of some LOTR fans nitpicking the movie. Personally I think that fans should stop complaining that the movie doesn't match the book page by page. There is no way the a movie can match a book that’s a few hundred pages long and have a reasonable run time. Not every good book/series gets such quality cinematic treatment in the first place. About the amount of action... I would sort of expect there to be lots of action in a movie where evil itself is chasing the heroes relentlessly. It goes the other way too, add lots of long winded dialog and people will complain that the movie moves too slow. All the extra dialog and less important character scenes belong on the DVD release where run time doesn't matter and they can extend the movie an extra hour.

[dark fuschia]

you want us to stop complaining? where would be the fun in that???

[sir archely]

hmm...i don't know though KA, i can understand when plot changes are made for purposes of getting a few hundred pages into a movie. For example, in LotR, i can completely understand why bombadil is cut out; he's expendable, and is a part that's stand alone enough not to impact anything else. I think that cutting was well done, despite the fact that i miss bombadil because i like the part in the book.

What i don't think makes sense is the entire demolishment of a character, and the addition of scenes that have very little point, and aren't anywhere close to being in the book. Faramir's character was butchered. In the interest of...? what? I don't understand how this can be explained in terms of making it more accessible to a larger audience, or in terms of leaving something out to make it fit in the time given. First, if someone isn't a fan of LotR, what are they going to care what Faramir's personality is? Second, they actually added scenes to get this whole thing with Faramir in the movie. Sure, Faramir lets the ring go...eventually. But not before he takes Frodo and Sam halfway back to Minas Tirith. If someone could explain the why of this to me, then i'd be satisfied. Maybe it's to set up something in RotK, or maybe i'm just not remembering something. In any case, i don't think it can be explained either by making the books available to a wider audience, or by adaption to screen.

[Malcor Sylverwood]

Well, to be honest...its probably also an adapation to the vision of the people who made the movie. I know I've heard Peter Jackson talk some about it. The passion he poured into it, and the years of work...well, I'll give him a little leeway.

-Malcor "Vision" Sylverwood

[epiph]

that, KA and arch, is exactly why i started this thread. i'm just curious how the changes made to TT make the movie more accessible to non-fans than the original story. i understand adding arwen in. i understand the women and children going to helms deep for eowyn to get more screen time. i understand actually showing the ents ravaging isengard. i understand the massive amount of time dedicated to the battle scenes (even if i don't agree with it). i DON'T understand that whole faramir/osgiliath thing. if frodo had really stood in front of a nazgul, hold the ring up, he'd be dead. utterly and totally annihilated. i don't understand how that helps make the story more accessible to a larger audience. i maintain and have said again and again, that if the time in the movie devoted to changing the story to take frodo to osgiliath had been devoted to gollum taking frodo and sam to shelob, the end would have been ten times better, while at the same time, NOT outraging fans.

/rant

[Malcor Sylverwood]

~chuckles~

~checks Box office results~

Yup...outraged. ;)

~flees~

-Malcor "Snark" Sylverwood

[King Albert]

I have no idea about the whole faramir/osgiliath thing since I have not read the series yet but from what epiph is saying that part of the movie is questionable. From my point of view the sequence where faramir captures the gang was to break Golum's trust and hence lead them to the big spider. In the book was Golum more in conflict with himself and didn't need to be betrayed to try to kill Frodo?

The osgiliath part wasn't needed. They wasted like half an hour on osgiliath. Nothing of importance happened then. Frodo went into that trance and almost got himself killed and then humans let them go... That time could have been used to shorten the run time or add real character development / meaningful dialog. Even with the extra time I still think that it was a good idea to hold off the spider to the next movie. There was already two gigantic battles at the end of the movie version of TT.

I don't see how any of the action scenes were over used or went too long:
-Gandelf vs Balrog - finally get to see Gandelf in action; if anything shorten pit fall by like 20 seconds
-riders vs orcs - over really quick, shows power of rohan riders and hobbits escaping
-humans vs goblin riders - used for the love story when Argorn falls.
-ents vs orcs - time spent on it seemed ok
-helmsdeep - the casual movie goer's reason for sitting three plus hours straight. Basically the whole movie leads up to this as the climax. They had better spend a good deal of time on it after setting it up that whole time. From what LT has told me this battle was shorter than what it was in the book where the ent's minions even get involved as the rohan warriors drive the orc army away. Even non-action movies have some sort of climax at the end whether it is the mystery finally being solved or some big revelation.

I just thought of how much time was used in the beginning when they are running to rescue Merry and Pippen. They crack a few jokes but other then that its just some boring scrubland pan shots over and over again. I normally like the spectacular pan shots of the New Zealand landscapes but the scrubland was just boring; just flat land with rocks and grass.

To answer your question then, the only reason why the movie changed faramir and added osgiliath is the artistic license of the director..... Some how it is used for the third movie???

:edit spelling. sloppy grammer due to typing at 3am in the morning.

[Nachtnoir]

OK, first thing. There are going to be two releases to DVD of The Two Towers. The first will be the theatrical edition, don't buy that one. A month or so later, late November, the four disk Special Collector's Edition will come out, get that one. It will contain 43 minutes of additional footage. The description of which has been said will correct the Faramir problem, and also include alot of the Ent stuff that was cut to placate the studio. Apparently they thought it was too long.

No was to what makes a marketable movie. Well......it is a proven fact that if you put the star of the moment in a film, it was most assuredly do ok. Put alot of attractive teenagers in it, and the kids will swarm the theatres, even if the movie sucks. Spend lots of money on a huge marketing campaign, no money on a script, and you have a blockbuster.

[sir archely]

nacht, you forgot T'n'A. ;)

[satan]

anyway, i think it's been said that the homecoming is gone for sure. i'm pretty sure they didn't do any filming of that, so it's not likely to be in any DVD edition either, but again, i could be wrong. The fact that Sam gets elven rope as a gift instead of his box o' dirt doesn't bode well.
that agrivates me to no extent.. it's cuz most people don't like a movie without a concrete ending.. like this is what happened and they live happily ever after..

i remember one time in 4th grade (i think) we were given a story about a man and a tiger. if the princess picked the man, she could wed him, if she picked the tiger he would die. It ended with something like "she picked the east door" and we were supposed to come up with an ending. It agrivated me to no end. I wanted to know what the author had intended the end to be...

right. ok.. and the point of that? poeple don't like uncertain ends. they should deal with it and the homecomming should be in the movie *nods*

[sir archely]

hmm...do you think they'll have the passing into the west? seems like they'd have to to me. at least they've already sort of set it up with the elves passing and the thing with arwen and stuff, but you never know, they might just end it with that triumphant scene after frodo and sam are returned from dumping the ring by gwaihir. i hope they don't just end with that.

anyway, you're right about the ending, seems like most people don't like vague endings. i find that really crappy, since some of the best endings can be vague i think, left to your own imagination. you know, let someone go with it, and they're going to come up with something far more personal and meaningfull to them than you ever could. Anyway, what's more, people don't like bad guys winning. i'm not sure i've ever seen a movie where the bad guy wins, and it's final. anyone got one for me? in high school my friends and i were into making movies of our own a lot, senior year i was in 'advanced media' where basically, we had to write a script and create the movie for our grade. my friend and i made a movie where the bad guy wins in the end. my teacher hated it, and told us if we didn't make something else, we'd fail. gah, stupid crappy teacher. anyway, i don't get what's wrong with it. just because people don't like to think about it?

[King Albert]

Vague endings are fine with me but I do perfer movies were the side of good claims victory. IMO the reason why good usually wins is because people go to movies for an entertaining and enjoyable experience. If the movie is done correctly with well developed characters that you feel for you are not going to want to watch them die or lose at the end without any positive result. Movies are the opposite of real life where the majority of the time evil does win (not counting any after death judgement or whatever). Archely, I have a "evil wins" movie (that I like) to recommend for you, The Devils Advocate. I think the movie Fallen also had an ending where evil wins.

[sir archely]

hmm...never seen either of those. i'll have to check them out, thanks KA.

[LaughingTurtle]

"Tiiiiiiimmmmme....is on my side, yes it is..."

~shudders~

[satan]

anyway, you're right about the ending, seems like most people don't like vague endings. i find that really crappy, since some of the best endings can be vague i think, left to your own imagination.

oh i totally agree, now. My point was more that i think the less developed intellects don't enjoy endings like that.. (sorry if you don't like vague endings)

and my friend is writing a book.. or series where everyone dies including the protagonist.. i find it cool and i can't wait till he finishes do i can read it