MovieChat Forums > The Three Musketeers (1974) Discussion > Why are the 2 films so different in styl...

Why are the 2 films so different in style?

posted 18 years ago by Funghi2000
7 replies | jump to latest

Does anyone know, why the two films "the three musketeers" and "the four musketeers" are so different in style?

The first is the best, and then with the second part, there is a different set, different composer and the timing of all is different.
The films are made from Lester at the same time. How could this happened?

Is here the same problem as Superman and Superman II? At the trivia of first says Tony Richardson takes direction. Is this right?

Plese help.

Tx Chris

[–] rogerscorpion 18 years ago

Well--I haven't noticed the details you mentioned, but I DO remember ppl complaining that the tone of the second was much more somber than the first. As was explained, @ the time, the second film is the second half of the novel--which is more serious & definitely tragic. The book is not comedic, but it IS more light, establishing the characters & relationships--lending itself to comedy. Kinda hard to do with strangulations & executions.

Carpe Noctem

[–] Blueghost 18 years ago

I actually wrote a review addressing this very thing. In short a lot of it has to do with the fact that the producers were trying to create two films from one large shooting schedule. So all the footage for the second film was done as is; i.e. there was no way to call the actors back to do what are called "pickup shots" to help complete the film.

The other part is contractual. Because the second film was done "without permission" so to speak of all the artists involved some compromises had to be made. Thus the second film has a kind of incomplete quality and feel to it; i.e. sometimes it's cheaper to pay someone to work on one film than two. This way the producers only had to pay for a single production as opposed to two different films, which would've been more expensive.

[–] fredo70 18 years ago

I always thought the second film was very depressing. The fight scenes and action sequences are actually better than the first. However the film never recovers from the death of Raquel Welch with those rossary beads and then the beheading of Faye Dunaway, what a downer! Sometimes Hollywood should put in a happy ending, Frank Finlays OTT joyous voice over and flashbacks at the end doesn't really help matters when your still reeling from all that tragedy.

Come to thinks about it the whole story of Milady and Athos was depressing too.

[–] imspartacus56 18 years ago

hmmm, are you seriously proposing that 'Hollywood' should have put a happy ending on this movie? You'll be saying that maybe the Titanic shouldn't have sunk next, 'cos that would cheer you up. And of course the film dosn't recover from Milady's execution; it's the end of the movie! For he record, the book has a happy ending of sorts, since it is at the end that D'Artagnan recieves a commission in the musketeers, a fulfilment of his dream at the beginning. The film versions moved the commissioning of D'artagnan to the end of the first movie to give it some sense of completion.
The story of Athos and Milady explains why he is the mysterious, unemotional reserved man that he is, and also illustrates just how much of a scheming bitch she is. It is a shame that you could not recover from the deaths of D'artagnan's lovers - he seemed to have no trouble. The book has a very relaxed attitude to sex, as does the film. Remember, Madame Bonancieux is married, as is Milady (in the book twice over)and D'artagnan also bags the maid, Kitty, for good measure.

[–] savedbyzero 18 years ago

the sound you hear is Dumas rolling over in his grave.
Fredo? As in the dimest of the Corleone brothers?

[–] jpaulgagen 18 years ago

Dumas' book is two halves. The first half is all light and airy as is the first movie. The second is where milady gets nasty on the musketeers and Athos goes all medieval on her.

Besides, Milady getting the chop is a happy ending. She is a vile and evil creature that fully deserves what she got despite D'artagan getting soppy.

[–] Mon_Mothma 18 years ago

I think it's great that the second film is darker.
It's one of the best things about those two films - it's like the careless boys have to grow up sometime (Notice they are quite reckless sometimes, not your ordinary Hollywood "perfect" moral heroes.)

For me that's what they are about - that life isn't just fun, although it may seem like it when you're young and privileged.

Plus of course it does the novel right :)