After reading the books, I felt like the movies were rushed (yes, even the extended editions). You just didn't get a sense for how long and arduous their journey was. It took Sam and Frodo a month just to get to Rivendell alone, and you truly felt like you were out hiking and camping with the hobbits for all that time.
In the movies, they just bump into friends and allies, spend a night at Bree (plus a couple nights out camping in the wild), run from the Nazgul, then they're magically there at Rivendell. Doesn't seem like it took more than a few days tops.
The whole journey to Mordor and back took a whole year. Imagine spending a whole year walking and camping across America and you might get a sense for how long it took them.
Honestly, The Lord of the Rings should've been a miniseries to properly flesh out the long journey. Even the extended editions cut lots of story and rushed the pacing to keep the story moving forward.
One way Tolkien adds tension and time is to end with a cliffhanger for Sam and Frodo in book 4 (part 2 of Two Towers) you then start following Merry and Pippin in book 5 (part 1 of Return Of The King) and have to read all of that before returning to Frodo and Sam in book 6.
Yes! The Two Towers novel ended with Frodo supposedly dead from Shelob, and Sam picking up the ring to finish the journey. It was almost halfway into Return of the King that we find out Frodo is still alive and Sam needs to rescue him!
That was such a great plot twist. I was kind of sad they didn't follow that chain of events in the movies. The whole Shelob thing was resolved really quickly, about halfway into Return of the King.
Narration is boring. Montages have the potential to overstay their welcome. Exposition in dialogue is dumb. There's already so much going on in the movies that adding more set pieces would actually generate the opposite effect. Busy movies feel like they rush and a lot happens in a short span of time (think what if tom bombadil). The only way was to actually cut more stuff to focus even more narrowly on fewer plot points, to gain time where to insert set pieces that illustrated the time passing, with slower pace. When a movie has very few things going on in a long time span, it feels like it's illustrating a very long span of time. This is a balancing act that all screenwriters and directors have to face. For example, look at interstellar vs. Castaway, which one objectively is about a longer period time, which one actually leaves you feeling like the characters experienced a lot of time?
Can't help but wanna see this overlaid on a mall map: these hobbits had to get to JC Penny from the Books-A-Million. A harrowing journey of many months.
Is there any evidence the Lord of the Rings world is round? The world was canonically created with magic, so it doesn't need to follow our version of physics
I wonder if you could calculate that. I thought that on a level area, the horizon is about 6 miles out (or is it 12?) based on that, could you calculate the size of the world based on the height of mount doom and the distance it would be?
Gandalf road raging in the left lane doin 5 under screaming "YOU SHALL NOT PASS"
Legolas calls padiddle before anyone else has a chance
The hobbits all fell into that little crack between the seat and the seatbelt latch thing, but they were ok because of the crumbs of lamb ass bread (that's what I call it cause it's shite) that they found.
And everybody screamed and scared the shit out of Gimli, who had fallen asleep and instantly charged into battle with the headrest of the front seat when startled awake. Then he got all embarrassed.
Well, to be fair, the fellowship was working as a low-wage Ent at the time, and I was a mere hobbit on a shoulder, so I just went along for the ride while he reminisced about his dead dogs.