(this is going to be very long, but please bear with me)
There has been a lot of talk regarding the changing of timelines and structure in the adaptation of LotR. I have been thinking about something which may shed some light on the reasons behind much of this restructuring.
The Three Act screenplay structure is a very widely accepted template for much screenwriting, and is famously taught by people like Robert McKee etc. It basically follows the pattern of ~~ introduction, inciting incident, Act One, reversal, Act Two, reversal, Act three, resolution. A vast number of Hollywood scripts conform to this structure (although many of the greatest do not) especially action films, fantasy/sci-fi films and romantic comedies. LotR, on the surface appears not to fit the structure ~ but if you remember that the writers were considering this as one HUGE screenplay, not three separate ones, I think LotR might just have been written with three act structure in mind ~ and I don’t mean that the three films represent the three acts… they don’t.
Here’s how it works (although a lot of this is speculation, as we haven’t seen RotK)…
As a frame of reference, I’m going to use the film “Shrek” because most people have seen it, and because it adheres very neatly to three act structure.
The first job of any screen writer is to identify the MAIN plot arc of the film:
In Shrek this actually has nothing to do with quests or journeys or adventures… the main plot arc is that of Shrek learning that he’s not disgusting, coming to accept the fact that he’s capable of love, and that he needs other people in his life.
In LotR, we have to accept that the MAIN plot is that of Frodo derstroying the Ring and overcoming Sauron… all the other stuff (Aragorn , Saruman, etc) while vitally important, is secondary to that main plot.
…so now then…
Introduction…(surprise surprise) introduces the characters, the setting, and the general context.
In Shrek (approx 90 min film) the introduction is about five minutes long
In LotR (9 hour+ film) the introduction is a good half an hour (it does not include the Prologue, which is an addition to the structure)
Inciting incident… the event which kicks off the MAIN plot.
In Shrek (90 min film) this is about 5-10 minutes into the film: i.e. Shrek gets pissy with all the fairy-tale creatures on his land, and goes off to see Lord Farquad to get rid of them.
In LotR this is over half an hour in: i.e. “Frodo: What must I do?” … Frodo and Sam set off together with the Ring., believing they are merely taking it to someone else, who will then deal with it.
Act One… The “beginning” of the plot where the story advances, and there is conflict, but nothing happens to change the direction of the story
In Shrek this takes up 15 – 20 minutes: i.e. Shrek and Donkey journey to the palace, get involved in the Festival, have a big fight.
In LotR this takes up over an hour: i.e. Frodo and Sam continue to journey onward, team up with Aragorn, have a few fights and a few close calls, get to Rivendel… all very exciting and essential, but fundamentally, nothing has changed: Frodo (thinks he) is still just taking the Ring to a place where it will be safe.
Reversal 1… Something happens to change the direction of the plot, and the true “story” begins.
In Shrek ~ 15-20 minutes into the film: Shrek is sent off on the mission to rescue Fiona ~ he undertakes the journey that will lead him to accept the love of others.
In LotR ~ 90 minutes into the film: “Frodo: I will take it!” The Fellowship is formed. The true “quest” of the film is revealed ~ the journey on which Frodo will ultimately destroy the Ring begins.
Act Two… The conflict Act. The story continues and develops. Characters develop and have conflicts. Secondary conflicts are introduced, developed and resolved.The MAIN plot is developed and the stakes get higher and higher, but it is not resolved.
In Shrek ~ takes 50-60 mins: Shrek and Donkey journey to the castle, get across the lava, overcome the dragon, rescue the princess, get back across the lava, have conflict with the princess, meet Robin Hood, have more conflict with the princess etc. etc. etc.
In LotR ~ takes the second half of ForT, all of TTT and (speculation alert) some of RotK. i.e. Fellowship’s journey through Moria, Gandalf dies, Boromir betrays, the Fellowship separates, Gandalf the White, Saruman, Rohan, Gollum, Faramir, etc. etc. etc. All these things are the secondary conflicts that occur on the way to Frodo destroying Sauron… they impact on it, they raise the stakes, but they in no way resolve the main plot.
Reversal 2… It all goes horribly wrong. The quest that was begun by Reversal 1 seems hopeless – the “lowest” point in the film, usually both in main plots and sub-plots.
In Shrek ~ 15 – 20 mintues from the end: Main plot: Shrek (mistakenly) hears Fiona say that he’s ugly & she doesn’t care about him, he lets her go off with Farquad and determines to live his entire life alone. Sub-plot: Fiona thinks Shrek knows she turns into an Ogre at night, and thinks he hates her for it.
In LotR (now the REAL speculation begins) ~ Frodo “dies” at the hands/fangs of Shelob. This has to be the considered the lowest point for the main plot, when all seems lost: it seems utterly impossible, at this point, that the quest begun at Reversal 1 can succeed. However, I’m not sure about secondary-plots. Will the writers skew timelines again so that all seems hopeless for the Aragorn/Gondor plot at this point as well? Perhaps the betrayal of Denethor? But that would seem to be changing the timelines TOO much? I’m very interested to see how they deal with this.
Act Three… climax/pay-off. The MAIN plot is resolved at last.
In Shrek ~ 15-20 mins: Shrek is convinced by Donkey to stop the wedding. Big fight at wedding. Baddie is overcome (burp). Fiona and Shrek finally realise they love each other.
In LotR ~ God knows… but probabloy more than half of RotK (there’s a lot to pay off here!) Battles, triumphs etc etc.. the rest of the secondary plots are tied up: Aragorn becomes king and a husband, Gollum fulfills his “part yet to play” etc. etc. and (drumroll) Frodo (sort of) destroys the Ring and Sauron is defeated: the main plot is resolved. (This BTW also shows why Scouring of the Shire cannot be in the films… not just for time constraints, but because it completely disrupts the structure if you resolve a secondary plot after you’ve resolved the main plot. It just wouldn’t work.)
Resolution… self explanitory.
In Shrek ~ the final 5 minutes: Shrek and Fiona get married. Happy happy joy joy.
In LotR ~ speculation again, but probably the last 10 – 15 minutes(?): The Grey Havens. Sad sad sad. (again, this does not include the expected Epilogue, which is an addition to the structure)
So there you have it. I think if you view it all as one huge script it fits pretty neatly, even in terms of the time proportions alloted to each act etc.
Perhaps a bit of an insight into the way the writers approached the mammoth task of adapting such a giant, complex novel into a giant, complex, but filmically coherent movie.
 mindlessmunkey
{true love waits, like spinning plates}
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
Excellent post, munkey. Incidentally, in many of the film making courses I took in college we were also taught the importance of "rising action" in a film (each major event in the story is increasingly dramatic, with more and more at stake) which attempts to insure the "best is saved for last."
In an interview, PJ stated that he had to tackle the plot layout from two points:
a) He followed the plot rubrick for the story as a whole.
b) He also followed the screenplay structure for each individual movie.
Thus, PJ had to contend with 4 climaxes, 4 resolutions, etc. -- as you've said, a monumental task indeed. He also had to follow the principles of rising action, both for each indiviual film, and for the trilogy as a whole. This explains the slight "disappointment" that many felt with the first film, as many people did not feel there was not enough of a resolution. PJ did that on purpose, of course -- it wouldn't do to make the events of the first book seem more epic than those of the second or third.
"I never could get the hang of Thursdays."
-Douglas Adams, RIS
|
|
|
Hey there, Andrew. Thanks for the reply.
Yes, I know that what I've written about is only the tip of the ice-berg in terms of the amount of thought that's been put into the screenplay.
I had also been thinking about the way there are structures within the structures, i.e. the way all three films follow a structure unto themselves, while also being part of the overall structure. It's interesting to hear about that PJ interview. I wish I'd seen / read it.
What you've said about 'rising action' is very interesting too. I don't think there has ever been a film where the action has risen more! It's true that, in comparison to the second (and we presume) third films, the stakes / tension / action at the end of the first is nothing (although it felt pretty spectacular to me at the time).
But ~ like you said ~ the film can't play all its trump cards in the first hand... it's just gotta get bigger and bigger!
mindlessmunkey
{true love waits, like spinning plates}
|
|
|
Finally, a good post on this board.
I agree with basically what you have to say, but I have something to add: the moving of Shelob's lair/Minas Morgul/Cirith Ungol/Sam's Choices scenes was a reasonable decision by the filmakers. In RotK appendix, most the Frodo/Sam/Gollum action takes place really side by side with the events in Gondor/Minas Tirith, rather than at the end of TTT. Tolkien got away with this because it was a book and it could be space out easier than a 9 hour feature film. PJ wanted to line up the timeline of the end of TTT/beginning of RotK so it would make more sense and would not confuse new viewers and make the plot line make the story flow easier. Get what I'm saying?
|
|
|
That is an excellent point penwell82. I had not accounted for nonlinearity of time being a pain for movie audiences to follow. Indeed, we wouldn't being seeing much of Sam and Frodo in ROTK if the Shelob scene had occurred in TTT.
"I never could get the hang of Thursdays."
-Douglas Adams, RIS
|
|
|
That's true, Penwell ~ kinda part of what I was saying.
In fact all of the structural (timeline, linearity, etc.) changes that PJ & Co have made, are improvements in terms of film sense.
If you had made the films structured the same way as the books ~ even with the same plot / character changes, deletions and ommisions, etc. ~ it would be an absolute shambles of a film. The structure of the book simply does not fit into a film without some serious tweaking.
mindlessmunkey
{true love waits, like spinning plates}
|
|
|
This message has been deleted by the poster
|
|
|
mm
{and the music and the echo of the music went out into the Void, and it was not void.}
|
|
|
Mindlessmunkey,
I don't have much to add but I wanted to express how much I enjoyed your post. OK, I do have something to add, taking as tangent to your analysis...the reaction of moviegoers, and of people familiar with the novels.
You've taken pains to indicate which on-screen events are essential to the main plot, and which are specifics that don't advance that plot. The challenge is accepting those specifics as being on a lower priority than the main plot. That's difficult sometimes, since it's often the details that stand out in a reading or a viewing (everyone has their "favorite parts" of the novels). What also complicates matters is that sometimes plot points that are superficial going-from-A-to-B details are representative of larger themes throughout the Tolkien universe.
So to illustrate you've got something like the Ents, which I've always considered a specific A-to-B detail, a means to a plot end. But of course readers of the book know that they are personifications of important Tolkien themes that reach outside of the LOTR story. If their role is altered for the benefits you've described above, does that somehow harm the film? Are those themes present in the film in some other form anyway, and if so what harm is that? Probably someone for whom the Ents are a favorite part of the novel would say that there is great harm.
Oh, what tangled webs we weave!
But I'm very much in tune with the way of looking at the film you've described. The issue of dividing a big, continuous story into three parts like that and having each film have its own story arc as well has always seemed incredibly challenging!
"How do you celebrate your holy week?"
"Wedgies, mostly."
|
|
|
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
|
|
 by -
sinaes
(Fri May 2 19:45:20)
|
|
I'm like a good haines t-shirt: tagless 
|
|
|
Poke!
 Honk if you love peace and quiet
|
|
|
...the angels had guitars even before they had wings...
|
|
|
Bumping along...
 if you hate Tom Hardy
|
|
|
Bump Poke
Fernie
|
| |
| | |
company.
Advertise on IMDb.
License our content.
UPDATED Mon Feb 3 12:00:27
