Oscar Best picture do overs. . .

[Paul MacLean]

From what I know of the books from my aborted attempts to read them, the only way to do them properly would have required twice the running time and a slower pace, without adding any action scenes in that running time.

I don't really think so. The pace of all three films was already much slower than it needed to be. Apart from the fact that Peter Jackson invented scenes which were not in the books at all, there were quite a few scenes should have been cut down. The Helm's Deep battle should only have been 15 minutes max. (I mean Kenneth Branagh fit the battle of Agincourt into about 10!)

I don't think we needed to see Denethor stuffing his face with tomatoes while being serenaded, and the climax and resolution of Return of the King should have been more smoothly integrated into the narrative (instead of all those awkward "endings"). A great deal of screen time is also spent on shots of actors crossing landscapes. In addition, there are a number of elements from the books which I don't feel transfer well to the screen, and ought to have been left out.

How would the fans of the books here have liked to see these movies filmed? Style/visuals, director, cast, music?

I could go on for about a hour on this topic! But unless a studio is paying me to direct a remake, its too exhausting to go into!

[JSWalsh]

I don't have a problem with invented scenes, since they're usually done to cram elements of many scenes together.

Your problems with the movie surprise me. I didn't think these movies dragged at all. The multiple endings weren't a problem for me at all--ending what amounts to a ten hour movie should be a kind of drawn-out deal.

It's interesting to me that for all the complaints, I've yet to read any Tolkien fan sketch out how they would do it better. I don't have a problem with that, either, but with all the fan activity about this trilogy of books I'm surprised.

"I don't really think so. The pace of all three films was already much slower than it needed to be. Apart from the fact that Peter Jackson invented scenes which were not in the books at all, there were quite a few scenes should have been cut down. The Helm's Deep battle should only have been 15 minutes max. (I mean Kenneth Branagh fit the battle of Agincourt into about 10!)"

There's no rule of thumb for screen time other than "what works" and I think the second movie works pretty well with the triple-climax, and would have been hurt if Helm's Deep were reduced to a 15-minute setpiece. A whole two hour movie could be made of a battle, or the battle could be one minute in a film, so I don't think comparing one battle to one in another movie really gets us anywhere.

Movie pace is an organic thing--lop off a scene here and you have to work on what comes before and what follows.

I believe the meeting scene in the first movie, where the fellowship assembles, represents a scene that's something like 100 pages long, so there was a ton of reducing that had to be done.

I don't think this material could ever be filmed to satisfy its fans.

[AndyDursin]

I've written this before in my reviews of all three LOTR films (which I received some angry mail as if I had trashed them completely), and I agree with Paul -- I'm not a Tolkien fan but I found all three films entertaining and yet massively overrated at the same time. I just was not emotionally engaged by any of them.

I was entertained by all three, I certainly admired certain set pieces, yet I felt an almost repetitious nature in how they were made, be it through the cinematography or the nature of the music (I felt TWO TOWERS was a particularly "noisy" score, regardless of how many motifs he composed), down to the almost exhaustive nature of RETURN OF THE KING. By the end of that film, much like KING KONG, I didn't feel emotionally invested so much as I was worn out and ready for it to end.

I also grew tired of the endless "Sam!"/"Mr. Frodo!" exchanges, as if the two of them should've just gotten a room and had with it (sorry to be graphic but as platonic friendships in movies go I had my fill of them!). And all three movies are packed with scenes that could've easily been cut, too many slow-motion sequences that build to false crescendos, and a pace that always seemed akin to a "Director's Cut" DVD.

That's not say I didn't find Jackson's efforts commendable, but they're three movies I have zero interest in ever watching again -- compared to something like, say, LEGEND or THE DARK CRYSTAL, which narratively may be severely lacking compared to Tolkien's story, yet from a music, cinematography, and art direction level engage me more a lot more on those terms, even with whatever drawbacks each may have.

[JSWalsh]

I also grew tired of the endless "Sam!"/"Mr. Frodo!" exchanges, as if the two of them should've just gotten a room and had with it (sorry to be graphic but even as platonic friendships in movies go I had my fill of them!).

Good god, halfway through ROTK I turned to my friend and said "Can I see the version where they cut out all the closeups of people crying?" and he said "It's a short subject".

If I could make ONE change it would be to go through these and rip out all the tender moments between these two and EVERY shot of people crying until the very end. Someday filmmakers will learn that you can prod the audience to cry by showing someone else crying just ONCE in a movie. Beyond that, it annoys people.

I really enjoyed the restraint in some scenes, but every damn character has a moment where he's weeping, and that flushed much of the good will earned by the relative somberness.

But I really enjoyed these movies because they have characters. DC and LEGEND get tedious, but there's always something interesting to look at in the LOTR movies--not so splashy, but I find the visuals based on Alan Lee's paintings refreshingly autumnal. The other two are just way too over the top for me, though LEGEND I own and may pop in some night. (I haven't yet.)

[Paul MacLean]

I don't have a problem with invented scenes, since they're usually done to cram elements of many scenes together.

But that was not the case in LOTR. They were invented tangents. Faramir did not remove Frodo and Sam to Gondor in the book. Neither was Faramir tempted by the ring. Aragorn did not fall off a cliff and then get revived by a horse licking his face. Apart from the fact that they are not found in the books, these sequences did not advance the plot either. They slowed things down.

There's no rule of thumb for screen time other than "what works" and I think the second movie works pretty well with the triple-climax, and would have been hurt if Helm's Deep were reduced to a 15-minute setpiece.

But everything which needed to be shown about that battle could have been done so in 15 minutes. I bring up Henry V because Agincourt was a real battle of historic significance, yet it was more then satisfactorily depicted in ten minutes. The battle scenes in Braveheart are under ten minutes, and the battle in Spartacus not much more than than. Stretching Helm's Deep to -- what was it? FORTY minutes? -- Is overkill in the extreme. I literally had a headache at the end of it (and I never get headaches).

[AndyDursin]

I literally had a headache at the end of it (and I never get headaches).

I seldom get splitting headaches that come on DURING movies but I've had them, memorably, three times in my life -- once during RETURN OF THE KING, once during KING KONG, and another time during THE PUNISHER.

The first two I attribute to Jackson. The third wasn't so much the movie but rather the food we ate beforehand, which I must've had a reaction to (I'm not allergic to anything either -- it was weird). I'll never forget that night because I had to drive home and my headache was SO bad I almost didn't make the 30 minute drive back from Providence...but I did, thankfully, and spent the next half-hour violently throwing up.

There -- something you didn't need to know but...felt like I had to share, lol.

[JSWalsh]

But everything which needed to be shown about that battle could have been done so in 15 minutes. I bring up Henry V because Agincourt was a real battle of historic significance, yet it was more then satisfactorily depicted in ten minutes. The battle scenes in Braveheart are under ten minutes, and the battle in Spartacus not much more than than. Stretching Helm's Deep to -- what was it? FORTY minutes? -- Is overkill in the extreme. I literally had a headache at the end of it (and I never get headaches).

I don't get this idea of screen economy. Anything can be done either briefly--in the movie equivalent of a sentence--or expansively--the movie equivalent of a novel. What difference does it make if one battle was historically significant? There isn't any kind of measure of importance, where scenes based on real events get more time. It's not about reduction to the bare essentials--movies aren't about minimalism, they're about all kinds of styles, and no one is better or worse in the abstract.

How can there be overkill in that kind of material? It's a fantasy movie with monsters and swords and elves running around. It's like saying a film noir shouldn't show people being mean to each other--it's kinda the whole point. Who wants to see a "reasonable" fantasy movie? Fantasy films are about scope and tossing the cash around and putting onscreen the stuff we wish we could see.

I think we're talking about something as simple as different ideas about what movies can be. It's interesting comparing tastes. One thing I just don't get is taking these movies with any degree of seriousness. The whole idea of these movies is hugely silly--why don't they just take a freakin eagle to the volcano?

[Jedbu]

You're right, JS, it is fun to compare tastes. Looks like I started an interesting topic with some very passionate opinions (the LOTR trilogy, SPARTACUS VS. BEN HUR, Andy's gastric situ) and I must admit I was inspired by Peary's book (look for his "Cult Movies" trilogy and the great book he edited on animation) for this thread. The Oscars have ranged from "great choice" to "Uh. . .really?" from the start. In a bio of L. B. Mayer, the story is told of why THE CROWD lost to SUNRISE for the "Best Artistic Quality of Production" award: because King Vidor showed a toilet in the former Mayer persuaded the voters in that category to vote for the latter! Mayer told this to Vidor before the awards were announced to prepare him for his loss. Both films are masterpieces-I happen to prefer the Murnau myself-but this story alone tells you that the votes for these films are not pure as the driven snow but have many other tendrils of reason thrown in that determine a winner.

Personally, it really does not matter one whit what the Academy chooses-you know what the best picture was in your opinion, and considering how the box office grosses on that award have been doing the last few years, many people agree with that idea. If FROST/NIXON wins on Sunday, it will be the lowest grossing Best Picture winner in Oscar history, taking inflation into account. What does that tell you?

By the way, I didn't overturn BEN HUR for religious or spiritual reasons-I just find it somewhat turgid and dull in many spots, although I do love Griffith, the chariot race, Rozsa's score and the way Wyler composed for the widescreen. I thought Heston was way better in EL CID and THE AGONY AND THE ECSTACY and should have won for either of those towering performances. The best sword-and-sandal film-IMHO-still is THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, or as I sometimes refer to it, GLADIATOR-THE EARLY VERSION. For religious epics, I still think DeMille's TEN COMMANDMENT remake much more entertaining in retrospect, and I'll throw in his silent version of THE KING OF KINGS, as well.

I also did not put any restraints as far as sticking strictly to the actual nominees-I did pick CITY LIGHTS for one year and that was not even nominated, which I will always think as a crime. Allowing other choices puts some very overlooked films in the running (some of which, in retrospect make you scratch your head; why wasn't SINGIN' IN THE RAIN nominated for the top award?) and gives a bit of fun to the mix.

Example: the winner for 1940 was REBECCA, which I have always thought of as middle-grade Hitchcock and not in the same league as PSYCHO, NOTORIOUS or even THE 39 STEPS. It is nicely made, but I think the tug-of-war between Hitch and Selznick diluted it somewhat. I thought the best film of that year was THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER, which was not nominated but has grown in stature over the years to be right up there with THE GRAPES OF WRATH and THE PHILADELPHIA STORY, both from that same year and were nominated. I think it is Lubitsch's greatest work and considering he only got an honorary Oscar before his died at 55, this would be righting a great wrong.

Other changes (forgot these yesterday)

'41 HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY, switch with THE MALTESE FALCON (I know that was the year of CITIZEN KANE, but I am starting to like this film more)

'44 GOING MY WAY, switch with THE MIRACLE OF MORGAN'S CREEK

'51 AN AMERICAN IN PARIS, switch with A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE

'64 MY FAIR LADY, switch with DR. STRANGELOVE

'75 ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST, switch with NASHVILLE

'80 ORDINARY PEOPLE, switch with THE ELEPHANT MAN, or if I've had a hard day as a sub, RAGING BULL

'84 AMADEUS, switch with ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA (restored version)

'94 FORREST GUMP, switch with THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, or PULP FICTION (see the '80 choices for clarification)

'95 BRAVEHEART, switch with HEAT (can't believe I forgot that yesterday)

'99 AMERICAN BEAUTY, switch with TOY STORY 2

[JSWalsh]

Yes, you started a good topic. I have all the Peary books, and have even read some of his baseball books.

I stuck to the nominees just to give myself a challenge. It was an education to see how I thought about certain movies.

I don't think anyone has ever taken the Oscars for anything but what they are--people say they don't care about the winners as if the rest of us were robots who just say "That's the best of the year cuz they say so" but I have never met anyone who thought that. It's an industry award and no one thinks it means much beyond that. I mean, everyone knows people get awards because "it's time" for them. And when you see the winners for People's Choice and such, I think it's hard to deny that even the uninformed public thinks the Oscars are something they have to pay attention to as some measure of their own choices.

Making choices without sticking to the nominees would take me too long. Maybe sometime. I have such a poor memory I'd need to look at lists of releases for each year, but there are thousands, so that wouldn't help me.

What I liked about Peary's method was that he didn't just give an award to something he liked--it had to be the TYPE of picture that would win an Oscar.

[AndyDursin]

How can there be overkill in that kind of material? It's a fantasy movie with monsters and swords and elves running around. It's like saying a film noir shouldn't show people being mean to each other--it's kinda the whole point. Who wants to see a "reasonable" fantasy movie? Fantasy films are about scope and tossing the cash around and putting onscreen the stuff we wish we could see.

You're going from Point A to Point C. Who's saying there needs to be a "reasonable" fantasy movie? LOL.

It's simple to have overkill in that kind of material, or ANY material, when there's virtually an hour of just one thing, and it becomes repetitious -- then tedious. Paul's point is dead on -- battle sequences in movies like BRAVEHEART worked and were effective, and yet only took up 10 minutes at a time. The Helms Deep battle in THE TWO TOWERS went on for four, five times that amount. It wasn't necessary, and I became bored by the endless hack 'n slash myself. I liked the movie, but it's one of the main reasons I don't love it.

[Eric Paddon]

"Fall Of The Roman Empire" IMO suffers enormously from ponderousness. It simply has no strong focal point in the way Heston is a strong focal point in "Ben-Hur".

I think "Ben-Hur's" strength as a story would have been better recognized if it had won the screenplay Oscar, which was denied it because Christopher Fry didn't get screen credit.

[Paul MacLean]

What Andy said.

What difference does it make if one battle was historically significant? There isn't any kind of measure of importance, where scenes based on real events get more time.

Well it is partly because historic events need to be depicted with fidelity, since those events are still of importance to people today (as with Sherman's march in the American south, Agincourt is still a sore point among some of the British and French).

The Helm's Deep sequence also contains elements not found in the book, such as Legolas imploring Aragorn to abandon the people (which was totally out of character for Legolas) as well as having a company of elven archers arrive to help. These superfluous inventions were a waste of time (in addition to convoluting the characterizations).

How can there be overkill in that kind of material? It's a fantasy movie with monsters and swords and elves running around. It's like saying a film noir shouldn't show people being mean to each other--it's kinda the whole point.

Are fantasy films supposed to be tedious and overlong in order to be true to the genre?

Also, while Lord of the Rings has been a huge influence on fantasy kitsch (like D&D, and lesser books / movies) I hesitate to call Tolkien's work "fantasy". LOTR was the product of a cultured, venerated university don, whose knowledge of mythology, folklore and the bible was consummate. Its more than a cut above Eregon or Dungeon Master tales.

And this is one of the main reasons the LOTR film's were dissatisfying to me. They were the work of a man who refused to eat anyplace but McDonald's while he was at the Cannes Film Festival.

Tolkien was a devout Christian, and the books are strongly informed by his beliefs. Despite the use of mythological characters and elements, the story's essentially Christian overtones are easily recognized by someone with even a cursory knowledge of of Christianity. Peter Jackson however said that LOTR was a celebration of all things pagan. If Jackson is about paganism he should have made The Mists of Avalon instead.

Who wants to see a "reasonable" fantasy movie? Fantasy films are about scope and tossing the cash around and putting onscreen the stuff we wish we could see.

Agreed. But my argument has nothing to do with the genre. I'm talking about how the LOTR films waste time on tangents and devote more time than is necessary to a great many scenes.

I think we're talking about something as simple as different ideas about what movies can be.

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the LOTR films being tedious because the material as filmed can't sustain their running time.

They also lacked a smooth narrative arc, in so in the films the sequence of events unfolds very awkwardly. Also I never really cared about the characters or got caught up in their plight. And again, I loved the books. (And just to be clear, I'm not such a purist that I can't accept a director's adaptation, as I enjoyed The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe and am a huge fan of the Harry Potter movies.)

I don't understand why you'll defend the LOTR films to the hilt, and debate my charges that they were tedious, yet you gave up on the books -- because you "couldn't get thru" them.

[JSWalsh]

I hope you're happy, Jebdu, I was supposed to be watching a movie last night before bed and I was furiously scribbling out my Best Picture pics for the last 70 years!

I'll post them if I think they're worth posting.

[Eric Paddon]

Tolkien was a devout Christian, and the books are strongly informed by his beliefs. Despite the use of mythological characters and elements, the story's essentially Christian overtones are easily recognized by someone with even a cursory knowledge of of Christianity. Peter Jackson however said that LOTR was a celebration of all things pagan.

Only in Hollywood could that kind of twisting of the source material be allowed to happen. It puts me in mind of how the film version of "Shadowlands" decided to de-emphasize the one thing that drew C.S. Lewis and Joy Gresham together in the first place, which was the common bond of Christianity.

[JSWalsh]

You're going from Point A to Point C. Who's saying there needs to be a "reasonable" fantasy movie? LOL.

Anyone expecting that fantasy movies with long battles don't compare well to history-based ones with ten-minute ones.