Actually, It is one large tale, but was written as six books. For publishing cost reasons, and the postwar economy, they were released as 3 books instead, 1&2 being Fellowship, 3&4 becoming Two Towers, and 5&6 being Return of the King; the Book number breaks are all still in there.Icehearted said:I was not referring to Tolkien, though I am already aware of his originally writing a complete book only to have it broken into three parts due to publishing limitations (as I recall it). I was talking about Peter Jackson's film trilogy, and how I'd read that he'd wanted to make a trilogy of each of the Lord of the Rings volumes either before or after the movies were made, due to the sheer amount of material available and the limitations in making a movie. Who would want to sit through a 6 hour movie? What we got were drastically cut versions of the books, and he had said that he'd wanted to make each book a trilogy to fully tell the tale.Hitchmeister said:J.R.R. Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings as a single book. It was split up by the publisher who felt that a single volume of that size would have been prohibitively expensive to publish at the time. Tolkien was never happy with the title they gave the third volume.Icehearted said:Actually, now that I think of it, the number may have been 9 movies (a trilogy per book), though I cannot for the life of me remember where I saw this, but I think someone was posting an interview online. So far the only thing I've found was a comment by a facebook user saying essentially that thee should have been nine.Mr Cwtchy said:I don't think that excuse at the end really works for LOTR. Star Wars is just as much a 'single story' as LOTR is. Incidentally, I would vote for that.
I've never heard that. According to the 'making of' for the films, they were going to be two originally, then PJ's first studio demanded he condense it into one or be replaced. Eventually he went to New Line and ended up with three.Icehearted said:
I highly doubt any studio would've gone for six. Bear in mind that making a trilogy like LOTR was considered nigh impossible back then.
But yeah, a lot was left out.
Your skepticism is totally understandable, and I am afraid I cannot presently cite any part of this.
This man knows what's up.BakedZnake said:
Other than being set at Christmas, Die Hard has very little to do with the holiday. I think if you really want to get into the Christmas spirit The Ref is a much better holiday movie.Batadon said:
