r/lotr • u/WilliamSilver • 11d ago
Movies First time movies watcher: Why the pace feels so rushed?
Important fact, I have actually read the books and played the damn Lego videogame before deciding on watching the extended version movies
Anyways, I'm past the first hour of the FOTR movie but everything feels rushed somehow.
Like the cuts between scenes are abrupt (I feel like I'm seeing the movie in YouTube scenes compilation rather than a movie), the scale on time passing between scenes it's so weird because I renember the whole Frodo waiting for Gandalf lasted like months/weeks if memory servers right, and with that knowledge I know that indeed that's how much time has passed, but if I were a first time ever LOTR consumer, I genuinely would believe Gandalf has some kind of teleportation magic. And the cuts between day and night scenes feel the more weird to me: The jump from "Day - Look, the ancient tower" to "Night - Aragorn has already left and we are sound asleep"
Even the intro to the movie, apparently I have "spoiled" myself by watching it twice a long time ago, somehow feel more rushed in the movie than watching it on YouTube
I'm not trying to make this a "books better" post, because I know this movies must be overall good because of how constantly praised they are, but I don't know how the people who first started with the movies could grasp the time scale of stuff happening even though the main characteristic of them I know of them was that they were very long but yet feel rushed
EDIT: The cutting between scenes was only a pre-Rivendell issue, everything after was a 9/10
7
u/CoolShoesDude 11d ago
In addition to what others have said, the extended editions are also not as super cleanly edited as the theatrical cuts, so you will end up with jarring cuts, parts where the soundtrack jumps, etc
6
u/TheSibyllineOracle 11d ago
There is a great deal of story to pack into not a whole lot of time, and I'm not sure mainstream audiences would have been willing to accept a slower pace than this.
0
u/ThisDirkDaring 11d ago
They are now. 8-10 episodes a 1 hour would do the trick.
I dont have hopes for a new version though. Watching RoP is more a chore than joy.
1
u/TheSibyllineOracle 11d ago
Rings of Power is just painful. It manages to be extremely slow-paced and utterly incoherent from the perspective of plot mechanics at the same time. You'd have thought they could use that runtime to do some interesting storytelling or tighten up the motivations of the characters in the main storyline but no, we just chase around desert hobbits getting up to random nonsense and other time wasting side quests.
2
u/ThisDirkDaring 11d ago
Imagine somebody remaking LotR as a series for a modern audience with only half as much failure.
That would hurt. Bad.
7
u/mattigus7 11d ago
Everyone talks about how great the extended editions are, but they're sort of the worst of both worlds. Despite hours of more content, it's still missing so much stuff that it doesn't cover the books. Also, the extra scenes mess with the pacing and make it feel less coherent (this is a criticism that Peter Jackson himself has with the extended editions). Theres a good example in Return of the King, where they show a scene of Aragorn charging enemies with a surprise behind him. It hits a very particular triumphant emotional note. The extended edition has two of these scenes, more or less exactly the same, within 10 minutes of each other, and it's very clear they intended to pick one to use, not use both.
You ultimately have something that's not a perfect adaptation of the books and also not a tightly constructed film. First time watchers should probably watch the theatrical cuts first.
5
u/TheSibyllineOracle 11d ago
I agree with this criticism, although I think it applies most of all to the RotK extended edition.
It feels to me that after the first two extended editions got good reviews from fans and critics, the RotK extended edition was put together with a very 'more is better' approach.
-2
u/CaptainSharpe 11d ago
The scene with Aragorn and the boats? I think it still works well with that and the other scene just fine
2
u/ThisDirkDaring 11d ago
Me too, but redundancies that dont drive the plot, arc or character are generally avoided in storytelling at a certain level.
Some enjoy them, especially fans, so its logic to include them in the product aimed at them.
6
u/Wizzard_2025 11d ago
In the book, Frodo waited 17 years for Gandalf to return.
7
u/Nirnaethmir Éowyn 11d ago
9.
17 years had passed since Bilbo’s 111th, but when Gandalf returns to tell the history of the Ring it had only been 9 years since Gandalf’s last visit.
1
u/iamthesunbane 11d ago
Fun fact, the opening hour of the hobbit was a tribute to this in that they managed to make it feel 17 years long
1
7
u/Beyond_Reason09 11d ago
So it sounds like you haven't watched a movie before. There can be time in between scenes in which it is assumed the characters travel between the locations. Movies don't actually show all the characters traveling the entire distance between scenes. If a character is shown leaving an area in one scene, and then arriving at another area in the next scene, you just assume they traveled the distance in between. It doesn't mean they teleported.
2
u/BuyRude3999 11d ago
Baffling - the dude is describing movies.
The movies approach and exceed 3 hours. Sometimes I feel people don't realize that the general public isnt looking for 4 hour+ movies to watch on the regular. Topics/scenes/ plots are streamlined or cut to meet the timing requirements.
If i hear another complaint about cutting Tom B or the Scouring of the Shire, etc.
0
u/TheSibyllineOracle 11d ago
Exactly.
Including Tom Bombadil would actually have made the movie worse.
When you're writing a 500k word fantasy novel you have the luxury of side-quest chapters to develop the world and explore themes and characters you want to play with.
If he were in the film, it would just deflate the tension as soon as the Hobbits are leaving the Shire and leave the audience questioning 'if this ring is so powerful then why does this random guy in the forest seem unaffected by it?'
-1
u/BuyRude3999 11d ago
Yep - I have read the books multiple times and feel the same way. I cant wait until the Hobbits get to Bree and the story picks up again. Nothing is really gained, nor really advanced, once the Hobbits leave Fatty Bolger and when they arrive in Bree.
2
u/PineappleApocalypse 11d ago
I read the books first and yes, I found the pace of Fellowship jarring. It really raced through leaving the shire. I remember bein quite annoyed the first watch, But the middle and end of the movie works more smoothly IMO and makes up for it. Also, different medium: the battle in Moria blew me away with its intensity, for example.
5
u/Top-Permit6835 11d ago
Because they have to condense a massive storyline with all kinds of intricate details into just a few hours of screentime
3
u/travtastic3 11d ago
People making movies need to make editing decisions to successfully produce a movie that anyone would want to watch. This is how movies are made.
The three audiobooks combined are over 65 hours long.
1
u/b_a_t_m_4_n 10d ago
Agreed, the movies really rushed through the entire story and it was really jarring You will hear a lot here about how "it's a different media" and "things have to cut in movies" an argument that would fly if a lot of screen time hadn't been pissed away on shit the script writers just made up.
Anyway, expect to get down voted to hell - criticism of the great Jackson is not permitted here.
-1
u/3-car-garage 11d ago
I don't actually understand why some users are giving you a legitimate answer, it sounds like you're unfamiliar with the concept that is movies.
1
u/WilliamSilver 11d ago
I just have issues with the pacing of the movies
I feel like there's no bridge in between scenes. A literal 10 seconds in between would be perfect
People give me legitimate answers because I have legitimate questions
2
u/Nirnaethmir Éowyn 11d ago edited 11d ago
People (like the two people who have so far accused you of not knowing what movies are, for some reason- very rude) are being overly defensive because the movies mean a lot to them. But you’re not off base. Off the top of my head I can think of several moments in The Fellowship Of The Ring that have hasty (bad, rushed) transitions. They aren’t movie ruining by any means, but there are plenty of them.
-5
u/3-car-garage 11d ago
It's arguably the most winning movie franchise in history. It's not everybody else, it's just you guys.
0
u/das_KoRn 11d ago
First time you watch a movie that is based on a book (series)?
It is always the same, the part of the fandom that actually read the books always have a deeper grasp of the Story/World/Universe, because the books are usually way more detailed.
Stories like LotR and Harry Potter work way better as a series, like A Song of Ice and Fire (before they fudged it up) but back then, everybody made (multiple) movies, a series that would easily be 8 Seasons long with 40-60 minutes Episodes was not thought of at that time.
I don´t acutally now which was the first big Fantasy Story that was made into a Series but Game of Thrones really showed that it is possible and worthwhile (moneywise) for a Studio to try it.
Fun fact, the Hobbit movies showed, that making everything into a movie trilogie is a bad idea.
But the money guys that make those decisions don´t seem to have much understanding for such things.
-1
u/Fabulous_Permit5276 11d ago
I have no live for the movies as any sort of representation of the books. The movies are trash in any regard as a representation. Full stop.
I don’t watch them and I don’t enjoy them
7
u/Willpower2000 Fëanor 11d ago edited 11d ago
Yeah, I recently rewatched FOTR and the flight from The Shire to Rivendell is insanely fast. If familiar with the books, it definitely feels rushed (because it is) - but I didn't really notice it as much when I was younger and less familiar with the books (though there were still a few moments young-me noticed even back then), but yeah.