LotR1-FotR-Seq03

[alatar]

Darkness comes...even to the Shire.

Anyone wanting a Ring's POV scene, well, here it is.

We see Gandalf reaching for the Ring as if it were a snake, though real or fake, he doesn’t seem too sure. The quick !shock! flash of the Eye stops him from examining it further. Why is Gandalf listed among the Wise you ask? He gets a premonition that the Ring is bad, and he leaves it be. We don't see him repeatedly trying to pick up the Ring. One warning was enough. And did you hear Gandalf mutter "riddles in the dark" and “my precious" as he ruminates on the Ring?

Frodo finally shows up at Bag End. I can't but help but think that as he walks in, he steps in it, so to speak, big time. Frodo finds not Bilbo but his uncle's Ring awaiting him at the door. But before he can explore this mystery, Gandalf scoops it away, almost like a forensic examiner - he never touches it. Did Frodo get a whiff of Sauron when he touched it?

But the Ring is sealed away.

Again we see the compassion of Gandalf as he rushes for the door then to Minas Tirith. Frodo is obviously bewildered, and so Gandalf stops, takes a moment and reassures him with a hand on the shoulder.

The shots of Barad-dûr, and the Riders leaving Minas Morgul are ominous, but not really scary. The lava moat, imported to Barad-Dur from Mount Doom, makes a nice connection between these two towers of power, but can't help but think about how hot (http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Outreach/AboutVolcanoes/how_hot_is_a_volcano.html) that molten rock is. And just where do they get the fuel for all of those torches that line the battlements? And, while on that topic, just why do they need all of that light anyway?

"One doesn't just walk by a river of lava in Mordor...not with 2000 SPF sunblock would I do this."

Gandalf's visit to the Minas Tirith library is exceptional - more detail, and brings to mind the library described in one of Umberto Eco's novels. By the by, is that a glass vessel of kerosene on his desk? Would one really want something like that in a room full of dry parchments? We learn of the tie between Isildur and his heirs, one of whom we will meet later. Another line from the books is included, "...though I buy it with great pain" and it may be misinterpreted here. My reading of the text is that ‘Isildur's pain’ is the loss of his father, not the burn he receives from this ring-shaped gleed. What did Isildur mean here?

A Ringwraith appears outside a hobbit hole and the blood (presumably) on the horse's hooves shows the nature of these creatures. Andy Serkis again provides great vocals. Before we’re too afraid there’s another switch from heavy to light as we enter the Green Dragon. Blessed with more Merry and Pippin, they are less foolish here than when initially seen. Frodo demonstrates ‘good’ characteristics as he’s shown providing others with mugs of ale. And we don't see him arguing with Ted Sandyman, and he takes no offense when he and his uncle are mildly insulted - Frodo has a more "whatever" attitude. The flirting of Sam and Rosie is cute. Somewhere the "Rosie knows an idiot when she sees one" line was touted to be just wonderful, but to me it's a joke that isn't really funny.

Bag End without lights isn't the warm place that we first saw. And you can see that Gandalf just hopes that the fire brings nothing forth on the Ring, yet when Frodo sees the elvish script - the depth of the letters displayed across his face - Gandalf accepts what he long has suspected. It’s a dirty job but someone has to do it.

Gandalf's and Frodo's dialogue yield more information about the Ring, and much is packed into the few minutes. In movie time, that may be an eternity - is that why we hear something in the background before they hear Sam, to keep the tension up? Just think if the prologue information were added here. How many theater-viewers would have started squirming? Did PJ make these movies not for those who could sit for more than a few minutes of exposition, but for those looking for a music video-styled adventure flick?

Anyway, as the dialogue is directly from the books, you just can't but love hearing it.

We see Gollum being tortured. Strangely, I always thought that his ordeal had something to do with his fingers, yet we see that these are free. And just how does Gandalf know that the enemy caught Gollum first, and what Gollum told them? Are we to understand that Gandalf has spoken with Gollum? If so, it’s not demonstrated well in the movie.

The tension increases as we see the Black Riders coming closer. The sound tells us what happened to the night watchman. Funny (well, not funny like ‘ha ha’), but PJ is big on beheadings, and so I’m not sure why this one wasn’t shown.

Finally the question that everyone who hadn't read the books is asking, "Why doesn't the big guy in grey take it the Ring as he looks competent enough?" is answered. Gandalf’s struggle with the Ring can be seen in his face, and you start thinking that he actually may want it. Elijah Wood expresses the shock at Gandalf’s admonition convincingly ("Well, that's not the answer I was expecting..."). The close up of Frodo clasping the ring was a great way to show that he accepted responsibility for it. The pace quickens as the two prepare for their separate journeys, scrambling about packing. Did you see the apple in Frodo's bag? I can't figure out what the significance is, but this fruit is a major player in the movie. And are we to understand that Gandalf is going to ride from the Shire to Orthanc and back by the time Frodo walks from Bag End to Bree?

Okay...

I just love Gandalf’s reference to Saruman when he states that Saruman "...is both wise and powerful." The intonation makes it sound like Gandalf is remembering it from Saruman's calling card or one of his late-night infomercials…


***CASH!!! for old gold Rings***

Contact:

Saruman the I'm both wise AND powerful White Wizard
-- Orthanc, Suite 501
-- Isengard, Nan Curunir, ME

By phone: I-BUY-JEWELRY
By Palantir: Dial the Mordor Party line for further instructions

Did I mention I’m both WISE and POWERFUL?Sure, Saruman will know what to do. Seems like Gandalf is really trying hard to convince Frodo that all will be well. Is Gandalf trying to convince himself? And why is leaving the name "Baggins" behind highlighted? As we will see, this doesn't play out as in the books, as there's no letter waiting at Bree, no Underhill clan, etc.

Telling Frodo to duck and cover when they hear a noise outside the window makes it seem that something may shoot him. Sam’s confession, including the "end of the world" item is a bit comical, added perhaps to lighten this scene? The silhouettes in the early morning dawn are wonderful, and you can hear Sam's mess kit banging around as it seems that he packed in a hurry.

"Is it safe?" All we need now is Dustin Hoffman and a maniacal dentist.

Bang! Gandalf is off, and our two hobbits are left in a darker, somewhat less perfect Shire. But at least they have each other. More great ME scenery, and as Frodo and Sam traipse across the country we’re no longer seeing TellyLand.

How does Sam know the exact threshold that bounds his Shire? I like the idea, but as there is just some corn stalks as a marker, I'm not sure how he knows for sure. Was it his pocket GPS? His reluctance along with Frodo's camaraderie is just great. Frodo reassures Sam, who in turn had to be reassured by Gandalf. You start to see patterns. These are the good guys, and you can see why they will succeed.

More direct Tolkien quotes. The movie never fails with these.

Wood elves?!? Are we to assume that Frodo knows the difference between Wood elves and Stone elves (and their assorted cousins) by the sound made by their passing? But we get more information about the elves regardless, and Sam's line is fitting, as the world is a sadder place now that the elves have left. By the way, in these processions/caravans, who decides who gets to ride the horses? Is it always a person of higher station, someone frail, the owner of the horse, what? And what happens to the horses when they reach the Grey Havens? Just something that I've always wondered.

The moment between Sam and Frodo camping has always bugged me a bit, as the dialogue isn't easily heard. Is Frodo saying to Sam that he cannot sleep with all of Sam's rustlings? Or is he amused with some foresight, knowing that in less than a year from now Sam will be able to catch a few winks in Mordor? Or is he smiling about the food that he laid out for Sam to eat as he tossed and turned?

But Sam and Frodo aren't alone in the woods of the Shire this night. Hopefully they will make it to Bree and meet up with Gandalf there, and Gandalf will bring aid. Will Gandalf arrive in time, will he bring help, and just where was the Grey Pilgrim going? That'll be for next week.

[Gurthang]

I really think this scene is the first to set the tone for the rest of the movie. Here it becomes suspenseful, as we see the Ringwraiths coming to the Shire and realize they are after Frodo. That is pretty much how the rest of the movie goes. It's not actually true suspense, or I wouldn't call it that at least, but a constant thought of being pursued, a overbearing sense of urgency. It makes the movie go faster, and requires more attention. I like that aspect a lot.

Hopefully more later.

[mormegil]

Okay there are some things that I really like and some that I dislike in this particular sequence.

Likes

1. I love how we see in more detail the ring itself. We see that it has its own character so to speak. We see why Sauron was not destroyed, which is a great piece of information to the movie viewing audience. All they saw was the big baddie blow up and now he's back. So we learn that Sauron cannot be destroyed as long as the ring survives. I actually like how we can almost hear audible language come from the ring. It helps emphasize the peril of owning the ring and Gandalf further makes this point by saying that the ring has heard its masters call.

2. I love the introduction to Sam on this level. Sean Austin starts well and ends even better. Although I must say I am rather neutral on the whole 'idiot' gag. Not incredibly funny but I am partial to Samwise. His comments on the elves are moving and we actually see a glimpse of the depth of spirit in Samwise. He is not articulate and yet he tries to express beautiful and profound thoughts. The same things is recurring throughout the book.

3. The glimpse of Barad-Dur is awesome!

4. The acting of both Ian and Sean is wonderful here and Elijah is great.

Dislikes

1. The Ringwraith killing the hobbit. While we didn't see that it bothered me because it never happened and didn't need to here. I understand that PJ is attempting to make them out to be evil but seeing them exit Mordor and knowing that they are after the ring should establish that to all but the most dim-witted individual. Tolkien explained rather well that they were not 'warriors' but their main weapon was fear. We see that rather well in the wraith's first encounter with the hobbit so why kill the next one. There is no barrier in the road. All this would serve is to raise an alarm in Hobbiton.

2. This is the part I can say that I hate though PJ attempted to rectify it somewhat in the EE it still falls flat. The time line! It's awful. I feel like it was a matter of weeks not years. Gandalf tells Frodo to sit tight, he leaves to Gondor, has an ale and finds the scroll. Meanwhile Frodo is busy at the local pub singing and dancing and he comes home to his house being broken into and Gandalf lurking in the corner, quickly back from his trip to Gondor. He finds it is in fact the one ring and tells Frodo "quick you must leave and you are not a Baggins but an Underhill, so we must leave tonight, hurry and pack a couple of apples Frodo that ought to last you till you get to Bree." It just doesn't make sense why Gandalf wouldn't leave with them and actual complete the journey with them. He seems rather careless and irresponsible here. If this is so important and he is such a great guy why must you run off to Saruman and leave the ring in the hands of a hobbit that has never traveled past Buckland?

I just wish PJ would have been more true to the books and let us know that he there is seventeen years gap here because as the way it is it seems like Bilbo left about 6 months ago and Frodo is quickly following.

[Essex]

This is where, in my opinion, we have the first Major Change from the book to the film.

There is a DIRECT link between the wearer of the Ring and Sauron. This has a knock on effect to the rest of the film, but for now I'll just discuss the scenes in this section:

Gandalf can't touch the Ring without contact to Sauron. He has to wait for Frodo to pick up the Ring himself. Frodo also does not put the Ring on during his tenure in the Shire, (or at least wear it on a chain) unlike the book. This leads us to the following Changes in these scenes.

Frodo has no real attachment to the Ring over the 17 years he was 'owning' the Ring. It stays in an envelope in his chest - (and he has to dig to find the envelope when Gandalf comes back) - We do not see Frodo's INABILITY to throw the Ring in the fireplace, which to me is a very important clue to what will happen at the Sammath Naur.

Merry and Pippin (and Sam) do not have a chance to build up their 'Conspriacy' (as the scriptwriters don't include their investigations of Frodo - but why would they if Frodo has the Ring packed away in a chest?) We therefore have a huge coincidence later in that they bump into each other on the way. They just get dragged along.....


Other points

Silly point, but in Jackson's middle earth we do not have a 7 year siege of Barad dur - the year 3434 when Isildur got the Ring was when the siege started, not 3441 when it actually took place.

Another reason for book - film changes - We've ramped up the atmosphere in finding Frodo's Ring is actually the One Ring - in the book Frodo and co hang around for a few more moths before leaving - this just couldn't happen film wise (everything moving at a quick pace, hightened atmosphere etc) so I understand this change. Gandalf doesn't tell Frodo in the book he's going to see Saruman, but again this is used because there is no NARRATION in the film. Jackson gets Gandalf to tell us instead of a narrator's voice.

Another slight change because of Narration - Sam tells Frodo if he takes another step it will be the farthest away from home he's ever been - Tolkien describes this - Sam stood by him. His round eyes were wide open – for he was looking across lands he had never seen to a new horizon

Jackon uses Gandalf telling the hobbits to go to Bree instead of Rivendell - I think he does this instead of having the Letter scene at the Inn - The hobbits in the book follow Aragorn mainly because of Gandalf's letter - in the film they mainly follow him because they don't know were to go after Bree......

[Gurthang]

Another reason for book - film changes - We've ramped up the atmosphere in finding Frodo's Ring is actually the One Ring - in the book Frodo and co hang around for a few more moths before leaving - this just couldn't happen film wise (everything moving at a quick pace, hightened atmosphere etc) so I understand this change. Gandalf doesn't tell Frodo in the book he's going to see Saruman, but again this is used because there is no NARRATION in the film. Jackson gets Gandalf to tell us instead of a narrator's voice.

Another slight change because of Narration - Sam tells Frodo if he takes another step it will be the farthest away from home he's ever been - Tolkien describes this -

Do you guys think the movie would have been better if there had been narration throughout? It would have seemed more cluttered, although better explained. But would that be better overall?

[Essex]

That's a very good question. As I said in a previous post on these threads, narration didn't work, for example, in Bladerunner for me. Although I have to admit I didn't realise this until I watched the Director's cut and then noticed how much better it was!

Narration is used in the cartoon version of LOTR in a few occasions (for example to explain the 17 year gap between the Party and Frodo leaving the Shire) - I think this works well in this medium (ie kid's story) - but I'm not sure how it would transpose to PJ's more 'adult' telling of LOTR.

Would it 'take us out' of the movie, in hearing someone speak we maybe would realise this is just a story we are hearing, rather than being immersed in the world of Middle-earth? I'm always jarred right out of the movie when I see Jackson or his kids, and this does get annoying, so maybe a narrator's voice would give the same impression.......

anyone else care to comment?

[Tuor of Gondolin]

" And just how does Gandalf know that the enemy caught Gollum first, and what Gollum told them? Are we to understand that Gandalf has spoken with Gollum? If so, it’s not demonstrated well in the movie."
=================

More comments later. But you're correct that this is a flaw in the movie
that should have been better explained. In the book, of course, Gandalf
says at The Council of Elrond that he personally conducted tiresome
interrogations of Gollum.

One movie following of the book I liked was Gandalf acknowledging
Saruman as head of his order. Given the movie depiction of Denethor
why not have just show Denethor looking disgusted and shaking
his head as Gandalf enters the library (with no explanation for his
presence at this time in the movie)?

[mormegil]

I'm not sure that narration would have been a good idea at all. I feel that Essex is correct in thinking that too much of it would pull us out of the actual story, which is not what filmmakers want to do. So I would suggest that they use one of those fancy shots where from one shot to the next 16 or 17 years have passed by and we are told by a large subtitle at the bottom of the screen. Gandalf should have returned and told Frodo that it is requisite that he leave soon but not tonight. However, it is imperative for me (Gandalf) to be leaving to go see Saruman. I will meet you in Bree on this date. That would have made sense because as it stands the only sense of urgency we feel is that Gollum told Sauron the name Baggins and Shire. We don't know the black riders are abroad yet (at least Gandalf and Frodo don't).

[Kath]

So I would suggest that they use one of those fancy shots where from one shot to the next 16 or 17 years have passed by and we are told by a large subtitle at the bottom of the screen.
That to me would be more of an intrusion into the world onscreen than narration, especially if the narration was by a character. Perhaps we could have had Galadriel again, making the point that time had passed.

As to the scenes themselves I like that it becomes darker, I mean actually literally darker, there is less light and a lot of the scenes are shot at night, when we see Frodo and Sam alone, and because we know that they will end up in Mordor there is some sort of link there. Then, when Merry and Pippin appear it becomes lighter, fitting with the characters I suppose.

But Gandalf telling Frodo about everything that was going on was nice, that was a sort of narration in itself, and as someone said it got all the necessary information across and in a way that was interesting and somewhat spooky in a very short space of time. That was done well I think.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

I remember vividly my first look at Barad-dur (sadly, it was not in the theatre). The camera flies past that first mini-tower or whatever it is, and I was like, "THAT'S Barad-dur? Pitiful!" Then, of course, you see the full thing slowly revealed, and I was in shock and awe. That and the first time we see Aragorn in Bree were really what cinched the movie for me.

I know Elijah Wood is probably the most controversial casting choice in the entire movie trilogy, but no one disputes that he's an excellent actor, and here he gets his first chance to shine a little bit. He certainly holds his own with the fabulous Sir Ian.

The Black Riders are pretty jarring, because, like in the books, you have no clue who these guys in black are or what they're going to do. After their appearance, with the exception of the scene at the Green Dragon, the Shire -- and actually the world -- ceases to be a friendly place. So then, the Nazgul set the tone and the mood for, really, the rest of the trilogy.

Howard Shore's score is brilliant as usual. The Mordor and Ringwraith themes are awesome, and "The Black Rider" track is one of his best.

[alatar]

Have thought about the whole timeline issue in regards to Gandalf's trip to Gondor and back. PJ has to keep up the tension, the pacing of the movie. In the last sequence we see the effect of the Ring on Bilbo, and thereafter Gandalf's hurried dash for more information.

So then we sit around for a few years, like 17? Just doesn't work in this story. Even narration or text stating that 17 years have passed would slow the movie. I've considered that even if PJ were to show the changing of seasons, these extra seconds would detract from the story.

My assumption is that Gandalf leaves and returns in some period of years (1, 2, 3...) so that the season doesn't change. There's no need to know at this point that the journey takes a good bit of time; you might start wondering why he didn't stop off and talk with Saruman along the way, why Frodo didn't start messing with the Ring, etc.

So as I see it, Gandalf leaves and returns a year later - we just don't see it.

Persons sitting in the theater may have not realized the amount of time that Gandalf takes to journey from the Shire to Minas Tirith and back, but might have started catching some clues later when Sam states how far out from Rivendell the half-dead Frodo is, and later when Gandalf says something about the number of days that they walked from Rivendell to Caradhras. By that time the Shire is a distant memory.

And regarding the Nazgul, I agree that less would have been more in that there was no reason to see what they would do to someone standing in the road. The last bit of this sequence where we see the Ringwraith disturbing the quiet night is better than the beheading. It's like the slasher or even the 'Alien' movies where what you don't get to see is more chilling that what is blatantly shown. Just show me some glimpses and I'll make the fear on my own, thank you.

[radagastly]

So we finally set out on the adventure. We have even more exposition, how to tell if this is, indeed, the One Ring, the shot of Mordor over the mountains as Gandalf approaches Minas Tirith with Mount Doom erupting, showing that Sauron has risen again, etc. But eventually, Frodo actually leaves Bag End. This exposition is done in a more filmic way, however. It cuts from scene to scene more rapidly than the prologue or the Party, it sends Gandalf to Minas Tirith and back, it shows the dialogue in the Green Dragon of the hobbits discussing the troubles in the world, just rumors at this point in the story. This shifting begins the building of tension, which will continue to build through-out the film. The overall tone is back to serious, but not in the mythic sense that we see in the prologue. It's more like it has come home. We see a more serious Shire, and more thoughtful hobbits, as the discussion between the Gaffer and Ted Sandyman illustrates. (I assume it's Ted Sandyman, as it was in the book.) I always wondered about Sam's feelings in this scene. If I was in a bar with my friends, checking out pretty women, I'm not sure I'd want my father sitting across the table from me.

Ian McKellan seems take the brunt of the dialogue in the 'Shadow of the Past' scene, to build even more tension. Elijah keeps up, which is a tribute in itself, but the bulk of the performance belongs to Gandalf, Fitting, since he has the most information, and must impart it to Frodo. The urgency works on film, though the passage of time doesn't really come through. I get the impression that Gandalf was only gone a few days or weeks, hardly enough time to track down Gollum and interrogate him. I think I would have liked a shot of Gandalf being told that Gollum had been captured, perhaps an elf visiting him in the library in Minas Tirith, and then rushing off to Mirkwood to see him. The way it is, I get no sense that Gandalf was gone long enough to ever meet Gollum, much less find out he was once in Mordor giving up secrets. It just seems there is a little too much story that has been left for the audience to piece together.

And then we set out. In a rush, in the middle of the night, or the early hours just before dawn. At least, it seems to be getting light in the forest where Gandalf mounts his horse and departs from them, giving one last warning to Frodo before he goes and re-establishing the Ring as a character, not just an object. "It wants to be found!" and then he's off. The two hobbits are on their own.

There is a better sense of time as they hike through the Shire, the woods, the fields, the little rivers, until we come to the first "Wizard of Oz" image, the first of many. It must be one of Jackson's favorite films. Frodo and Sam stop in a corn field with a scarecrow that has crows sitting on it. For Dorothy and Toto, it was a crossroads, where she must make her first decision. For Sam, it's a crossroads of another kind. If he takes one more step, it'll be the farthest from home he's ever been. If I recall correctly from the book, he has these thoughts on the Buckleberry Ferry, as it slips away from the bank of the Brandywine river. It's a bit of a premonition. He must move forward to the big adventure, or turn back. He seems to know that big things lie ahead, if he continues. And so, with gentle encouragement from Frodo, he moves ahead.

[The Saucepan Man]

Just think if the prologue information were added here. How many theater-viewers would have started squirming? Did PJ make these movies not for those who could sit for more than a few minutes of exposition, but for those looking for a music video-styled adventure flick?You exaggerate, of course. But, in a sense, yes. It seems clear to me that Jackson deliberately chose to style the film as an action/adventure blockbuster, albeit one that is (in my opinion) of superior quality to most examples of the genre. It's all about "bums on seats", luvvie. ;) I do think that much more exposition in this scene would have had many audience members fidgiting in their seats. But that's understandable since, given that the film was essentially billed as an action/adventure (to get them there in the first place), they would be expecting it to keep the pace up.

And why is leaving the name "Baggins" behind highlighted? As we will see, this doesn't play out as in the books, as there's no letter waiting at Bree, no Underhill clan, etc.But Frodo's alias does play a part in Bree, doesn't it? Gandalf's warning here helps us to understand why Frodo is so concerned when he sees Pippin identifying him as Baggins rather than Underhill in the Prancing Pony, provoking him to adopt the ill-fated attempt at distraction.

And what happens to the horses when they reach the Grey Havens? Just something that I've always wondered.Have you not heard of the renowned glue and dog-food factories of Mithlond. :eek: ;)

Tolkien explained rather well that they were not 'warriors' but their main weapon was fear. We see that rather well in the wraith's first encounter with the hobbit so why kill the next one.But it is rather difficult to portray on screen that their main weapon is fear. Yes, the film shows us Hobbits being fearful of them, but the more likely conclusion is that this is because they represent a physical threat. My guess is that Jackson probably felt that they would not be seen by many viewers as sufficiently fearful if they were not shown carrying that physical threat into action. In other words, it portrays them as being deadly in fact rather than just theoretically so because they look scary with their dark robes and "invisible" faces.

It's like the slasher or even the 'Alien' movies where what you don't get to see is more chilling that what is blatantly shown. Just show me some glimpses and I'll make the fear on my own, thank you.I agree with this, and the example of the first Alien film is a good one. It's a masterpiece of suspense horror with few graphic "splurge" scenes (although there is of course the obvious one ...). Perhaps it's because SFX have improved or perhaps its because tastes have changed over time, but it seems to be the "modern way" to show as much as possible these days. Like you, I personally prefer the understated, suspense-building approach, but I can understand why Jackson may have thought it necessary to match the expectations of today's audiences.

Have thought about the whole timeline issue in regards to Gandalf's trip to Gondor and back. PJ has to keep up the tension, the pacing of the movie. In the last sequence we see the effect of the Ring on Bilbo, and thereafter Gandalf's hurried dash for more information.

So then we sit around for a few years, like 17? Just doesn't work in this story. Even narration or text stating that 17 years have passed would slow the movie. I've considered that even if PJ were to show the changing of seasons, these extra seconds would detract from the story.I pretty much agree with this. It's obvious from the fact that Gandalf has travelled to Minas Tirith and back in the interim that some time has passed since Bilbo's party. Clearly it's not the 17 years of the book, because the characters have not noticably aged. But that doesn't really matter for the purposes of the film. Nor does it matter whether it's a few months, a year or even a few years. All we need to know is that some time has passed.

Another issue, of course, is that the actors would need to have aged 17 years had the book time-scale been used. Indeed, it would then have made sense to use older actors and make them look younger for the earlier scenes. Which would almost certainly have precluded the casting of Wood in the role of Frodo (which could be a good or a bad thing, depending on your perspective). It would also have given rise to problems with Merry and Pippin. Either they would have had to have been older (which would rather work against their film characterisations) or they would have had to have been omitted from Bilbo's party (which would then require additional time introducing them later on).

[alatar]

It's all about "bums on seats", luvvie. I do think that much more exposition in this scene would have had many audience members fidgiting in their seats. But that's understandable since, given that the film was essentially billed as an action/adventure (to get them there in the first place), they would be expecting it to keep the pace up.

Can't say it any better than that, SpM. What I don't know, or remember, is the pacing of the theatrical version of this sequence compared to what I just watched. Were even more details left out?


But Frodo's alias does play a part in Bree, doesn't it? Gandalf's warning here helps us to understand why Frodo is so concerned when he sees Pippin identifying him as Baggins rather than Underhill in the Prancing Pony, provoking him to adopt the ill-fated attempt at distraction.

I guess we'll come to that in a couple of weeks, but right now I still think that it's a detail that could have been left out.


Have you not heard of the renowned glue and dog-food factories of Mithlond.

Scary that I had the same thought, yet wanted to be sensitive to the Downs members who may not even considered such a thought/practice.


I agree with this, and the example of the first Alien film is a good one. It's a masterpiece of suspense horror with few graphic "splurge" scenes (although there is of course the obvious one ...). Perhaps it's because SFX have improved or perhaps its because tastes have changed over time, but it seems to be the "modern way" to show as much as possible these days. Like you, I personally prefer the understated, suspense-building approach, but I can understand why Jackson may have thought it necessary to match the expectations of today's audiences.

More agreement - what's happening to me? ;) Maybe some of the younger members who have seen not only FotR but also the first 'Alien' movie can give us their take on the understated/overstated issue. Back in the day I found the movie Salem's Lot (1979) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079844/) creepy, and you don't even see the vampire until late in the flick. It was made-for-TV, no gore, most things take place off screen, yet it was still scary.


It would also have given rise to problems with Merry and Pippin. Either they would have had to have been older (which would rather work against their film characterisations) or they would have had to have been omitted from Bilbo's party (which would then require additional time introducing them later on).

We first see Merry and Pippin as fools, then I guess we would jump 17 years into the future to see them less as fools. Which are they? And though we are only in seq03, we've already met 5 of the Nine Walkers along with Bilbo, Elrond, Galadriel and Gollum. And I'm guessing that with the exception of Merry and Pippin (who at this point are indistinguishable fools), most movie goers might already understand a little about each of the named characters.

[Essex]

So no one bothered with the Ring being made much more 'powerful' in these early scenes (ie gandlaf can't pick it up without 'seing' the Eye)? and that Frodo didn't wear it (or not even on a chain) whilst in the Shire?

[Dimturiel]

This sequence contains one of my favourite parts from FOTR: the passing of the wood Elves. But something is a bit wrong in this scene. The wood Elves are shown as truly mysterious and beautiful creatures and,compared to them, the Elves of Rivendell seem, well, a bit too normal and more like Men. We do not see that silver shimmer about them. Well, when Arwen appears, she does have a silver light around her but I have always thought that only Frodo sees her like that. But I think that nowhere else in the movie is the dignity and magic of the Elves captured as great as it is in this short scene. Sam's words then always bring, if not tears in my eyes, then at least a thight feeling in my throat. "I don't know why, it makes me sad.", and, indeed, the world can only be a very sad and emty place without the songs and the light of those wonderful beings.

[alatar]

So no one bothered with the Ring being made much more 'powerful' in these early scenes (ie gandlaf can't pick it up without 'seing' the Eye)? and that Frodo didn't wear it (or not even on a chain) whilst in the Shire?

Note exactly sure what you mean. I guess that I've accepted the POV that the Ring was never used, and that even Bilbo used it sparingly, if at all. And Gandalf getting a vision of Sauron was okay - what was that big eye, as the last time that we saw him, Sauron was a large walking armored giant? Maybe Gandalf was as clueless as we were supposed to be. And the Ring's power grows as Sauron declares himself, which in the movie I assume happens when Mount Doom explodes in fire, as Gandalf's sees off in the distance.


My feeling is that (1) there wasn't time to show 'time' between Gandalf's departure and return, and (2) if Frodo could use the Ring initially with little effect, then it might have been harder to show the danger/gravity later.

[Essex]

what I mean, Alatar, (and we'll no doubt get onto it later), is that the Ring has been made more powerful, and a direct contact to Sauron - this is shown when he says 'I can see you' (or something like this!) when Frodo puts the Ring on in Bree.

Also, we therefore never see Sam wear the Ring near Cirith Ungol - therefore Sam is not a Ring Bearer - therefore Sam doesn't follow Frodo years later to the West - (and also Frodo got on Jacksons Middle-earth's 'Last' ship...........)
anyway - more on this later.

I want to raise another point I had a massive slanging match on on another forum a couple of years back - It's Gandalf's thoughts when Frodo says he can't see any markings on the Ring. I put it to you that there is DISSAPOINTMENT on his face (not relief as everyone else seemed to think at the time) - The reason behind this is that it was Gandalf's JOB to find the Ring so he could help the people of Middle-earth defeat Suaron. He thought he'd found it, but for that second, alas no.

Anyway, this is a purely film point, as it doesn't happen in the book anyway.....

PS and that even Bilbo used it sparingly, if at all. he seemed to put it on OK during the Party!!!!! and seemed to have no trouble - indeed he seemed mighty pleased with himself when he put it back in his pocket - so no direct line to Sauron there..............no if we did have a 17 year gap then I might (perhaps) understand the direct link to Sauron theme.

This is one of my major bug bears with the film.......

[alatar]

what I mean, Alatar, (and we'll no doubt get onto it later), is that the Ring has been made more powerful, and a direct contact to Sauron - this is shown when he says 'I can see you' (or something like this!) when Frodo puts the Ring on in Bree.

Okay, didn't see the Bree connection in this sequence. I think that all of that hullabaloo regarding Sauron seeing Frodo was to repetitiously connect the Ring with Sauron and evil. And note that timeline-wise, the Bree scene occurs after Mount Doom erupts. Was this why Frodo doesn't get the same experience as Gandalf when he briefly handles the Ring in Bag End after Bilbo leaves (though he handles is later...hmmm)? Could it be that unless he wears it, he is not sensitive enough or as perceptive as Gandalf is to see Sauron until Sauron awakes?


Also, we therefore never see Sam wear the Ring near Cirith Ungol - therefore Sam is not a Ring Bearer - therefore Sam doesn't follow Frodo years later to the West.

Though we don't explicitly see Sam wear the Ring at Cirith Ungol. I will allow that it happened off screen (something I learned to permit from our many discussions ;) ).


I want to raise another point I had a massive slanging match on on another forum a couple of years back - It's Gandalf's thoughts when Frodo says he can't see any markings on the Ring. I put it to you that there is DISSAPOINTMENT on his face (not relief as everyone else seemed to think at the time) - The reason behind this is that it was Gandalf's JOB to find the Ring so he could help the people of Middle-earth defeat Suaron. He thought he'd found it, but for that second, alas no.

Very interesting idea! To me, it seems that Gandalf is hoping this is one of the lesser Rings, and when Frodo confirms that it's not, Gandalf expresses sadness as he realizes that either Sauron will recover it and conquer all, or that it will be used to overthrow Sauron somehow, yet Frodo at the very least will suffer along the way. What you are saying is that Gandalf was hoping that this was indeed the One, and was disappointed when Frodo initially didn't see the elvish script. Gandalf is hoping that with the resurfacing of the One Ring that doom is near, and his work will come to an end, one way or another.


Not that I'd want to start a poll, but how have others interpretted Gandalf's reactions?


PS he seemed to put it on OK during the Party!!!!! and seemed to have no trouble - indeed he seemed mighty pleased with himself when he put it back in his pocket - so no direct line to Sauron there..............no if we did have a 17 year gap then I might (perhaps) understand the direct link to Sauron theme.

Rewatch the scene when you get a chance. As Bilbo's speech wanes, he becomes more nervous and to me unbalanced. It's like he doesn't want to put on the Ring. When he reaches Bag End, however, he's pretty chipper and pleased with himself. Was he anxious because he was going to disappear in front of a crowd? Or was it the 'taste' that he would get from the Ring? After getting his fix, he's better, though maybe a bit more on the darker side of things. To me it mirrors an addict's actions.

Great thoughts, by the by.

[Mister Underhill]

This thread has moved very quickly, and there are many great observations and insights here. I only have time to chip in a few thoughts here and there:

Voice-over narration
According to Hollywood legend, Harrison Ford did the studio-ordered narration for Blade Runner in the flattest monotone he could manage in hopes that it would be so bad that they wouldn't use it after all. It seems to me I've since read denials of that story, but make of it what you will. I love the narration in Conan the Barbarian, which is presented in the form of a "sidekick" character recounting a tale from the past, and in Apocalypse Now, in which the narrator -- Willard -- narrates events more or less as they happen, almost as if they were journal entries or something. Narration provides an elegant solution to the exposition problems in Braveheart.

Overall I don't think I'd have liked more of it in LotR than is there, but I might have more to say on this later...

The Time-line
I think PJ definitely fails to give the sense of much time passing while Gandalf is away, particularly in the theatrical release. I saw it in the theater with non-fans and fans who hadn't read LotR in years, and I distinctly remember that they were confused by the sequence. Tolkien, though he was no dramatist, may have had the right instincts here when he said he favored abridgement over compression "with resultant over-crowding and confusion, blurring of climaxes, and general degradation". I'd like to come back to this point later with more ideas, but no time right now, alas.

Frodo
We start to see the differences between the book and the Jackson/Woods characterization. I really dislike the vacant, dumb smile on Frodo's face at the Green Dragon when he toasts Sandyman's "wisdom". This is the beginning of a trend of weakening Frodo's character which I can't quite understand. Is it the Gaffer who comments that Frodo is "cracking", just like Bilbo? The only sign we've seen so far that he's different from any other hobbit is the first shot of him reading a book.

Like Essex, I missed the scene where Frodo can't throw the Ring into his hearth.

Cheap Suspense
In this sequence, Jackson also unveils for the first time his willingness to trade plot and character logic for cheap suspense. The already rough Gandalf-research/Nazgul-unleashed sequence becomes even more confusing with the inclusion of an attempt to trick the audience into thinking that there might be a Nazgul waiting in Bag End for Frodo. I hate how Gandalf reaches out of the darkness and grabs Frodo's shoulder -- would anyone ever do that except in a movie?

Another of these is the bit with the "fiery letters" on the Ring. Why would the letters flare up several seconds after the Ring has been taken from the fire? It's little details like this that add up and bother me over the course of the trilogy.

One of my biggest disappointments in Jackson as a director is his eagerness to go for these transient sort of moments even at the expense of the overall picture.

Things I Like
The models of Barad-dûr and Minas Tirith are fabulous. I really enjoyed the preview of the latter, in particular. The design of the Nazgûl is excellent. And, as has been mentioned many times, lines straight from Tolkien are always welcome.

Back for more later, and maybe more on the POV albatross I raised in the previous thread. :)

[Rimbaud]

This sequence contains one of the few seconds of film that make the trilogy for me. Sadly the one that really hooked me was McKellan's look to Frodo at the Council that I will have to elaborate expanisvely upon later :), but here it is Ian again, with his reaction to the ring. As, perhaps unarguably, the best actor in the picture (and for lack of whom much of TTT doesn't work for me) it behooves Gandalf to make the most of his status. And here he does it brilliantly. Nobody can fail but to be impressed that the Ring is a Nasty Piece of Work by his reaction. For me, this is the clincher on that story-line - from then on the audience knows it's bad; where all the 'bouncing' and Williams music built it up, here one look from a decent actor tells you 300% as much.

Sadly, as happens often in these flicks, Jackson tries very hard to spoil his actors' best work by throwing in a lot of soft-focus jumbalaya with mutterings of riddles and such, but the initial impact was enough and we know.

For the rest of the sequence, I'm with Mr U. It's overly compressed, disorienting, and could perhaps (come on, shout me down) have been done better with a voice-over...?

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Another of these is the bit with the "fiery letters" on the Ring. Why would the letters flare up several seconds after the Ring has been taken from the fire? It's little details like this that add up and bother me over the course of the trilogy.

The same reason the Ring sits for like twenty seconds on the floor of Mount Doom before it finally crumbles and disappears. To build up the tension. From a book perspective, I don't like it, but from a movie perspectice, I think it does what it's supposed to do.

And, my bad in my earlier post. "The Black Rider" track doesn't occur until Sequence 4!

[mormegil]

what I mean, Alatar, (and we'll no doubt get onto it later), is that the Ring has been made more powerful, and a direct contact to Sauron - this is shown when he says 'I can see you' (or something like this!) when Frodo puts the Ring on in Bree.

The one analogous event from the book that comes to my mind is when Frodo is seated upon Amon Hen and we read:

And suddently he felt the Eye. There was an eye in the Dark Tower that did not sleep. he knew that it had become aware of his gaze. A fierce eager will was there. It leaped towards him; almost like a finger he felt it, searching for him. Very soon it would nail him down, know just exactly where he was. Amon Lhaw it touched. It glanced upon Tol Brandir - he threw himself from teh seat, crouching, covering his head with his grey hood.

It seems that PJ adapted this part of the book to cinematic form and did it in a respectable way. He was trying to show that Sauron's power is growing and how the ring is tied to him and with Saron's stength increasing his awareness of the ring is increasing and those who use it will be under his eye.

PJ needs to establish this power early on so it is done at this sequence for this exact reason, so the audience knows that Frodo should not use it and later we see the consequences of him using it at Bree.

Sorry if this skipped ahead a bit but it's addressing issues that have arisen due to this sequence.

[Essex]

Yes, Mormegil, but as always, when you start to muck about with the plot (and what a tight superbly conceived plot it is) of LOTR, you begin to see the cracks. For example, Frodo puts on the ring in Bree and INSTANTLY Sauron is there and aware of him.

At Parth Galen, Frodo puts it on the escape Boromir, but Sauron does not seem to be aware of him until his climbed all the way to the top of the Amon Hen and sat near the Seat of Seeing.

So why could he wear it for that amount of time, going up the hill, and to add to this, why not wear it when he came back down (as he does in the book).

It just gives inconsistencies to the story when the scriptwriters come up with their own ideas (or embellishments.....)

Sorry, jumped far, far ahead of myself here with this post - I just want to show that the seeds of many changes that the Scriptwriters do work like falling dominoes all the way through the film...........

[Cailín]

I don't have much time right now, but I do wish to say something about the suggested narration or voice-over in these scenes. The problem is, I think, not only that a voice-over has a way of distancing the viewer from the story, but that later on in the movie, a voice-over would have definitely had no place in the movies. Once you establish a narrator in a movie or a book or any story, you are more or less forced to be consistent and have the narrator make regular appearances throughout the story. Now, I can personally think of very few and perhaps no other points in the three movies where a narrator would have added something to the story. PJ made the right choice by only occasionally let one of the characters narrate something.

About the short scene with the Wood Elves... this has rapidly become one of my favorite moments in the book, which is enough to ensure that I was quite disappointed with the adaptation of that particular scene. I must say that - though this is probably personal - I had never pictured the Elves to be so solemn, but I suppose it's impossible to really capture my image of the Elves on screen. ;)

[Boromir88]

I like how Jackson handled the narration in the beginning. I think it's good to get everyone introduced and into the story, but I don't think it should have been used much more. I wanted to hear Galadriel narrate at the end and sort of close up the storyline of the Fellowship members. I'm reminded back to Troy, where Sean Bean does the narration in the beginning and then he closes the story in the end. I think that's all the narration that would have worked with LOTR. Get us introduced, and get us a closure (though the narration is not at the end :( )

You exaggerate, of course. But, in a sense, yes. It seems clear to me that Jackson deliberately chose to style the film as an action/adventure blockbuster, albeit one that is (in my opinion) of superior quality to most examples of the genre. It's all about "bums on seats", luvvie.~Sauce
I agree, and when it comes to movies a lot of people (teens especially) want to be brought right into it from the start. They want it to start off with a bang to get everyone's eyes on the screen and keep them there. It's like a rock concert, you start out with something that'll get the audiences attention and keep them there.

Seabiscuit, slowly progresses into the movie. Now, it's a great movie, well made, good acting, and I loved it. But the story starts out super super slow, and it drags on, once we get to the last half it's a wonderful movie. But, as far as I know Seabiscuit isn't an action/adventure and Jackson needed to do something to start off with a bang. I think this small battle in the beginning, and Sauron's destruction does this quite effectively.

Now we already have this built up tension when we find out Bilbo's ring is the One Ring.
1. The ring wraith killing the hobbit. While we didn't see that it bothered me because it never happened and didn't need to here. I understand that PJ is attempting to make them out to be evil but seeing them exit Mordor and knowing that they are after the ring should establish that to all but the most dim-witted individual. Tolkien explained rather well that they were not 'warriors' but their main weapon was fear. We see that rather well in the wraith's first encounter with the hobbit so why kill the next one. There is no barrier in the road. All this would serve is to raise an alarm in Hobbiton.
I agree. The first Hobbit encountered was actually Farmer Maggot (as creditted) the Second one I don't know. It does set up an inconsistancy in the movies....Kill or not to Kill? The movie has already set up the Ringwraiths effectively. Jackson portrayed them as terrifying (which they should be), and the best so far that we see of this "Ringwraith Terror" is the encounter with Farmer Maggot.

Also, later on when we see the Ringwraiths, it gets this sense of quiet, and you'll hear a horse neigh, or you'll here it's feet clunking on the ground. I know that subtelty works real well in movies, or suggestion. It's so much different from the slasher horror movies of the day (which catch your eye but are all the same and are quite boring). A lot of the past horror movies would only suggest things, you would see that it's scary and terrifying, but you wouldn't have to see any blood and gore because of it.

I think of the old House on the Haunted Hill. You never see any of the ghosts, you will only here a door slam, the building would shake, you might hear scraping, you'll se a door bend and sway like they are trying to push through, but again you never see the ghosts. This is quite terrifying, and very subtle, creating a lot of tension in the audience despite not seeing the actual ghosts.

I think Jackson does set up the Ringwraiths well, as explained above, but he seems to have to like to pound ideas into our heads. The killing of the 2nd hobbit is useless.

I'll make one more point before I have to go here. I wated to mention Frodo when finding out it was the One Ring, he first wants to hide it, then he tries to give it to Gandalf, but then he says "What must I do?" I love this line, and I think it fits perfectly with Frodo's character (and I can't say that through the whole movie). It shows that Frodo is willing to step up and take the burden of the Ring, he is willing to do his part for the whole life/death of middle-earth. It sets up Frodo as we come to see him, taking up the burden upon himself, knowing something has to be done and he's gotta do it.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Many excellent points above, pro and con: A few comments:
===================

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Another of these is the bit with the "fiery letters" on the Ring. Why would the letters flare up several seconds after the Ring has been taken from the fire? It's little details like this that add up and bother me over the course of the trilogy.

The same reason the Ring sits for like twenty seconds on the floor of Mount Doom before it finally crumbles and disappears. To build up the tension. From a book perspective, I don't like it, but from a movie perspectice, I think it does what it's supposed"
====================
It seems to me, I don't have a copy of LOTR at the moment, that the scene
of the Ring showing letters after a pause was taken from the book.

The depiction of Farmer Maggot was, in its way, as irritating as Denethor.
I believe Tom Bombadil has a high opinion of Maggot, in the book he
refuses to give in to Sharkey, and his dogs weren't the movie wimp.
It would have been better to just have him labeled "unknown hobbit" in
movie credits.
One of the nice little bits in the book was Frodo's reconciliation with
Maggot. Rather then bowlderize the character it would have been better
to exclude him (like Tom Bombadil).

And yes, rewatching FOTR makes you appreciate more how crucial to
the movies IM was.

[alatar]

I would agree with Tuor of Gondolin in regards to naming the hobbit "Farmer Maggot.'' Though his dogs were fearful when the Nazgul did something or other, Farmer Maggot stood his ground. Surely it was daylight and he was on his home turf, yet still a deed worth at least a few bars in a song...

And it seems that a theme in this thread is PJ's lack of subtlety. He gets much right, but there's just that propensity to just take something 'good' and turn the volume up to 11. Watching the appendices included with ROTK EE, you get to see one of his crew just lavish honey-dripping praise on Jackson in regards to biggerBiggerBIGGER! The person actually states that, in the end, Jackson's input/decision was always the infallible 'right' thing to do.

Sure, if I had a chance to be immortalized on these DVDs, I'd say whatever it took too, but it almost looks like the person actually believed it.

Anyway, as we will find out later in regards to the Witch King's mace, the crew thought that what they created for PJ's review was ridiculously too big, yet he sees it and says "Bigger!" So here, in this sequence it's not enough for us to see bits and glimpses of the Ringwraiths - think about what you thought when you read the books. You find yourself reading faster so that you can figure out just what these black-robed things are. Did you reread the paragraphs when Frodo speaks with the elves and with Bombadil to see if you could wring more information out of the same words on the page? Even at Weathertop you really don't get much on the Nine.

Another example in this sequence of a good idea taken a bit too far in seen when Frodo returns to Bag End after drinking at the Green Dragon. We're on the same set/same place, yet it's changed because there's no fire or light. An opened window, innocent enough, allows the wind to stir up some papers. You get a bit of an eerie feeling, yet we haven't done anything stupid yet.

Wham! A disheveled Gandalf grabs Frodo from behind and starts ranting at him.

Was this the same kind old man that took a moment to reassure a young hobbit a scene or two ago? We could have just as easily watched a light appear in the corner, then the glow of Gandalf's pipe illuminating his face. But no! We need tension, and so we will use a character that previously we've taken some care to establish and already, in less than 40 minutes in, have him do something that's out-of-character.

But Gandalf appearing in the corner wouldn't have had the same effect of the 'cat jumping out' trick like you see in many slasher movies. And even if you use the cat trick, the idea is that the audience is expecting/hoping to see the monster come out, and you trick them with the cat. Here, PJ uses the cat yet has already shown us the monster.

PJ is about as subtle as a mumakil in a daisy patch.

[Mister Underhill]

It seems to me, I don't have a copy of LOTR at the moment, that the scene of the Ring showing letters after a pause was taken from the book. In the book, the writing is visible as soon as the Ring is taken from the fire. 'It is quite cool,’ said Gandalf. ‘Take it!’ Frodo received it on his shrinking palm: it seemed to have become thicker and heavier than ever.

‘Hold it up!’ said Gandalf. ‘And look closely!’

As Frodo did so, he now saw fine lines, finer than the finest pen-strokes, running along the ring, outside and inside: lines of fire that seemed to form the letters of a flowing script... The writing is visible when the Ring is heated up, and fades when it cools -- and this is exactly how the Ring is portrayed in the movie in this very sequence: at 00:34:06, after Sauron has gone nova and Isildur picks up the Ring, now separated from the heat of its master, the writing begins to fade.

It's a small detail, I know, but I believe in the saying, "God is in the details". Jackson might as easily have had the letters appear after a delay in a shot of the Ring in the fire, but I think he wanted to pull it out so he could have that fancy shot of the fiery writing glowing on Frodo's face. There's another saying, used mostly by writers, that goes, "You must kill your darlings." In other words, if you have some fancy writing -- or in this case a really cool fancy idea for a shot -- that is awesome on its own, but detracts from the whole, then you must cut it out.

I think the power of the reveal of the letters in this scene is greatly weakened by the Prologue and the Gandalf-research bit. When the letters appear, we are not surprised. The audience already knows all about this One Ring, and we've seen the writing a few times. The scene would have played more effectively without that information: Gandalf has Frodo dig out the Ring, tosses it into the fire -- what's he doing? When he pulls it out, this secret writing appears -- whoa! What does it mean? It means this Ring is more than it appears to be. Well just what is the story behind this thing? Etc.

BTW, one explanation for Gandalf's premonitory flash when he reaches for the Ring is that he also wears a ring of power. You could argue that this is why he has that foreboding glimpse of the Eye and Frodo does not.

[Lalwendë]

The whole passage of time mistake gets to me - it does appear that Gandalf goes off down the road to the library and is back a day or so later, just in time to surprise Frodo coming back from the pub. Funnily enough, chatter in the pub has been about odd goings on which only serves to deepen the time confusion for non-readers. Maybe this was done so that they would not have to put make up on the actors playing the Hobbits so they would appear older; the cynic in me starts thinking about how keen they must have been to get Elijah and his youthful good lucks into the film. :rolleyes:

Still, it's not too big a deal. What really does seem confusing to me is that the Ringwraiths seem to be in The Shire and being told of the whereabouts of the Bagginses while Frodo is still at Bag End. If the Ringwraiths had got that far into The Shire, and if they were getting directions, it would take them a matter of hours to find Frodo. That has always seemed odd to me.

As to the Ring being made to appear as a 'character' in the film, well it can appear so in these scenes. But as one of those readers who tends not to view it as a sentient 'thingie' I can also see in the film how this object has been made to appear sentient. The film scenes can be read two ways. Quite obviously we can read the Ring as sentient in these scenes, but it can also be viewed as being built up to appear that way by Gandalf. He impresses upon Frodo the nature of this object, and he impresses how dangerous it is, which is only emphasised by his refusal of it. All of this serves to impress upon a small Hobbit that he is in possession of something pretty nasty. I actually like the way that this can work both ways.

[Essex]

The whole passage of time mistake gets to me - it does appear that Gandalf goes off down the road to the library and is back a day or so later, just in time to surprise Frodo coming back from the pub. I think the way he shows SOME passage of time is the way Frodo roots around in his chest to find the Ring - moving stuff around and finally finding the Ring (still in its envelope) - Not that I like this (I would have rathered he wore the Ring on the chain and stopped himself throw it in the fire) - but at least this shows some passage of time.......


What really does seem confusing to me is that the Ringwraiths seem to be in The Shire and being told of the whereabouts of the Bagginses while Frodo is still at Bag End. If the Ringwraiths had got that far into The Shire, and if they were getting directions, it would take them a matter of hours to find Frodo. That has always seemed odd to me.But then this is exactly what happens in the book. Frodo JUST gets away in time, as the Ringwraith knocks on the Gaffer's door. Jackson has just negated the few months gap between finding out the ring is the One and Frodo leaving Bag End.

[mormegil]

I've been thinking about the whole passage of time and think I found something that would have worked rather well. When Gandalf comes back and grabs Frodo from behind that should have been scratched and Frodo merely comes home to find Gandalf has arrived. He is elated to see Gandalf again and simply says something along the lines of "Gandalf, you have returned, it's been ages since I last saw you" Gandalf agrees, does the fire test and tells Frodo that he must leave to see Saruman. At their departure, they find Sam and Gandalf tells them to leave within a month or two. That one line would have shown some passage of time and as Gandalf leaves then we could see the sequence of the Nazgul leaving Mordor heading for the Shire.

I beleive most nonbook readers would be thinking "Oh crap, those guys are heading to the Shire and Gandalf is not there". Frodo quickly escapes right before they arrive a month or two later. This would also serve to show that on horseback moving quickly it takes a long time to get from Mordor to the Shire. This would also have opened up a bit of time for the conspiracy to develop and include Merry and Pippin as true friends not somebody they meet by happenstance.

[alatar]

I've been thinking about the whole passage of time and think I found something that would have worked rather well. When Gandalf comes back and grabs Frodo from behind that should have been scratched and Frodo merely comes home to find Gandalf has arrived. He is elated to see Gandalf again and simply says something along the lines of "Gandalf, you have returned, it's been ages since I last saw you" Gandalf agrees, does the fire test and tells Frodo that he must leave to see Saruman. At their departure, they find Sam and Gandalf tells them to leave within a month or two. That one line would have shown some passage of time and as Gandalf leaves then we could see the sequence of the Nazgul leaving Mordor heading for the Shire.

Too subtle for PJ, though I would rather have seen your version. I can just see someone proposing your same ideas in a writing session, yet PJ saying something like, "But instead of Gandalf just sitting around, why don't we have him scare Frodo? The audience, especially those book-fans, won't see that coming..."

Anyway, as I assume that mormegil along with others didn't stay up all night, burning more than a few candles, in order to come up with a similar scene that is more logical and also true to the books, my guess is that PJ et al just chose to modify the scene in order to PJ-ify it. A small change here, but I think that as the trilogy progresses, we'll see that (1) the changes begin to grow and (2) the changes become problematic.

[Mister Underhill]

I think what Lal is saying (correct me if I'm wrong, Lal), is that the sequence is edited in such a way as to make you think a Nazgûl got to Bag End ahead of Gandalf --

"There's no Bagginses here. They're all up in Hobbiton... that way!"
Songs and beers and table-talk at the inn.
Frodo staggers home -- it's creepy in there -- OMG! Is that black-robed dude there waiting for him?
Ahh! Oh, no, it's just Gandalf. Don't jump out of the shadows like that Gandalf, you nearly gave me a heart attack.
Frodo digs out the Ring.
Gandalf throws it in the fire. It's the Ring. Hoo-boy, it's gonna be good when that black-cloacked dude gets there. Should be any second now...
Wait, they're having tea? What's with all this talking? C'mon, black-cloaked dude, use your spurs or something.
Oh -- there's the wraith, and now he's got a buddy. Sweet! Go ahead and pack, Frodo, you're toast.
Sam, you want some too? Okay, black-cloaked dude attack imminent...
It's morning? Did the black-cloaked dudes decide to stop at a motel and catch some shuteye, or...?
I trace it back to that moment of suspense at Bag End and my previous comments. So much time passes between the Nazgûl being pointed the way to Hobbiton and Frodo's departure that the audience might easily be disoriented as to why the wraiths never show up. Book fans, of course, will understand that the Shire is a rather large place and perhaps forgive PJ, but judging the movie as a movie on its own terms, I think Jackson makes a mistake here by specifically trying to trick you into thinking a Nazgûl might be in Bag End so early in the sequence.

I think PJ trades what might have been a genuinely suspenseful moment -- a narrow escape from Bag End -- for a rather cheap one -- Gandalf jumps out of the shadows.

One thing I've noticed in rewatching these sequences is the amount of repetition of information. Within the first forty minutes or so, we see and/or are told the story of Isildur three times. I understand that there's a lot of information here for the audience to take in, so some repetition is necessary, but I wonder how much is too much, and whether or not Isildur's story deserves this much focus as a plot element. Something to think on.

I'd still like to come back and visit several points made earlier in the thread, but this has been a busy week for me. More later, perchance.

EDIT: Cross-posted with morm and alatar, who both make good points.

[Essex]

my guess is that PJ et al just chose to modify the scene in order to PJ-ify

It's called suspense! or building the atmosphere up..... didn't gandalf turn up at night in the book too anyway? ok so he didn't grab him, but does this really matter? Is it really that different to the book? ok, I think it might have worked better to see the Nazgul at Gaffer's door, but other than that, to condense the time and move the movie on, the hobbits left straight away......

what about the 17 year gap - to a movie is it really that important?

[mormegil]

what about the 17 year gap - to a movie is it really that important?

Not 17 per se but some time passing is important because as it currently sits I still feel that only a small amount of time has passed. This creates great confusion for many because they just see Gandalf leave quickly read some papers and return, meanwhile the Nazgul leave Mordor and arrive in the Shire. It simply doesn't make sense and there is no continuity. This could have been alleviated had we merely known that sometime passes and Gandalf needed to depart immediately while Frodo should leave soon. I still look and wonder why it was more important for Gandalf to run off to Saruman then help two defenseless hobbits carry out the most important task of the third age?!?!

[alatar]

One thing I've noticed in rewatching these sequences is the amount of repetition of information. Within the first forty minutes or so, we see and/or are told the story of Isildur three times. I understand that there's a lot of information here for the audience to take in, so some repetition is necessary, but I wonder how much is too much, and whether or not Isildur's story deserves this much focus as a plot element. Something to think on.

In the movie Mortal Kombat (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113855/?fr=c2l0ZT1kZnx0dD0xfGZiPXV8cG49MHxrdz0xfHE9bW9ydG FsIGtvbWJhdHxmdD0xfG14PTIwfGxtPTUwMHxjbz0xfGh0bWw9 MXxubT0x;fc=1;ft=22;fm=1), the main theme of the movie is repeated many times. I've found that this works well with a younger audience and also makes the theme unmistakable by those unfamiliar with the story/characters/etc. Again, as PJ isn't known for subtlety, was this his way of hammering the 'history' home?

Was PJ making sure that we got it so that his references to Isildur later in the trilogy made some sense? He meant to show that by one man ME was cursed, and so would be redeemed later by one man. Is this to 'answer' questions like why didn't Elrond just bop Isildur on the head, take the Ring and cast it in the Crack?

[Essex]

I still look and wonder why it was more important for Gandalf to run off to Saruman then help two defenseless hobbits carry out the most important task of the third age?!?!
but wasn't it ALWAYS Gandalf's job to bog off when it came to Hobbit's jouneying? :) I always remember at school reading the Hobbit - oh there gandalf goes again! (or other words to that affect) - but years later I realised he was at the Council and planning to get Sauron out of Dol Guldur.

So he goes to see Saruman to find out what to do. Now (sacrilige here maybe) - but isn't it a better idea to get the hobbits out of the Shire as soon as possible and send them on their way rather than making them wait for him to come back as he does in the book?

We must also remember that Gandalf DID NOT KNOW THE RINGWRAITHS WERE HUNTING FRODO DOWN YET. That is why he could go to see Saruman. Remember the passage coming up soon with Saruman. Saruman tells him the Nine had left Minas Morgul - What happens? FRODO! - He gasps and attempts to leave, no doubt to rush back to aid Frodo.....

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuor
It seems to me, I don't have a copy of LOTR at the moment, that the scene of the Ring showing letters after a pause was taken from the book.

In the book, the writing is visible as soon as the Ring is taken from the fire.
Quote:
'It is quite cool,’ said Gandalf. ‘Take it!’ Frodo received it on his shrinking palm: it seemed to have become thicker and heavier than ever.

‘Hold it up!’ said Gandalf. ‘And look closely!’

As Frodo did so, he now saw fine lines, finer than the finest pen-strokes, running along the ring, outside and inside: lines of fire that seemed to form the letters of a flowing script...

The writing is visible when the Ring is heated up, and fades when it cools -- and this is exactly how the Ring is portrayed in the movie in this very sequence: at 00:34:06, after Sauron has gone nova and Isildur picks up the Ring, now separated from the heat of its master, the writing begins to fade.
========================
It may be me, but I still find the book version somewhat ambiguous
about the writing appearing sequence. As for the movie, you recall that
Frodo says something like (in response to Gandalf's query about what he sees) "Nothing", and then "No, wait, there are letters", which indicates a delay in the lettering appearing.

And is there some breakdown of future segments to be discussed. I assume
the ridiculous way Merry and Pippin join the flight is included in the next
segment.

[alatar]

It's called suspense! or building the atmosphere up..... didn't gandalf turn up at night in the book too anyway? ok so he didn't grab him, but does this really matter?

Yes, it does in this case. In the minutes of film preceding the Frodo-grabbing scene, we see Gandalf as a wise caring old wizard man, beloved both by children and at least two older hobbits. We've seen him actually hug both of these characters. He could have simply yelled back to Frodo, "See ya!" as he ran out the door for Minas Tirith. But PJ has this character stop, turn and take a moment to reassure Frodo. And he places a hand on his shoulder. That touching is important, as it did not need to be in the film. This same touch on the shoulder would later be used to shock.

Nothing in the film (we hope!) appears by accident - we're not watching live footage but a medium in which there might be 29 individuals 'pictures' every second, and each of those pictures is what the producer/director wants us to see. This group made sure each of those pictures had the right color, brightness, computerized effects, etc. Now, to zoom back out, we have a main character doing something. Then, moments later, this same character does something that to me is out of character, and the only reason that I can posit for the action is cheap thrill.

If we are to have suspense, use a cat. ;)

My guess, as stated previously, that we here could have written the scene to include suspense yet allow for the characters to remain internally consistent and also to show some 'traveling time.'

[Mister Underhill]

In the movie Mortal Kombat (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113855/?fr=c2l0ZT1kZnx0dD0xfGZiPXV8cG49MHxrdz0xfHE9bW9ydG FsIGtvbWJhdHxmdD0xfG14PTIwfGxtPTUwMHxjbz0xfGh0bWw9 MXxubT0x;fc=1;ft=22;fm=1)Ouch! Okay, I have a few problems with Jackson's LotR, but there's no need to be insulting with Mortal Kombat comparisons. ;)

Seriously, though, repetition is a useful tool for filmmakers, who work in a medium where you can't flip back a few pages if you get lost or confused. I'm not necessarily citing this hammering of Isildur's history as a flaw (though in fact I think there are places where Jackson overuses voice or flashback cues to MAKE SURE THE AUDIENCE GETS IT, but we'll come to those in time...), just making an observation. I think you're right that he's really drilling it for the sake of the Aragorn storyline down the road.
We must also remember that Gandalf DID NOT KNOW THE RINGWRAITHS WERE HUNTING FRODO DOWN YET. This is true, though I think that Jackson adds to the confusion by having Gandalf act as if he expects an enemy to appear at any moment in Bag End.

On a more general note on the timeline, I wonder if a solution -- more in keeping with Tolkien's favoring abridgement over compression -- would be to have Gandalf already suspect that Bilbo's ring is the Ring when he arrives in the Shire for the party. It'd go something like this:

Bilbo, with Gandalf's help, gives up the Ring and leaves for Rivendell.
Frodo arrives in Bag End and picks up the Ring. Gandalf conducts his fire test right away, Shadows of the Past, etc.
Gandalf needs advice from Saruman, he leaves to get it.
Time passes -- maybe a few scenes of Frodo in the Shire, only now it doesn't seem so safe anymore. Maybe we even start to see the Ring beginning to weigh on Frodo's mind.
Maybe something like that scene at the Green Dragon, only now when Frodo hears talk of "strange folk abroad" and whatnot, he seems more concerned than ever.
Gandalf has not returned. Frodo, filled with foreboding, decides he must leave the Shire without waiting for Gandalf (either Gandalf proposed his plan earlier as in the book, or Frodo decides for himself to seek Bilbo and his Elvish friends in Rivendell).
Frodo leaves just in time as he hears the Gaffer being questioned by a Nazgûl.
Etc...
I'm just spitballing off the top of my head, but I think something along these line would be a little cleaner, and also make Frodo a stronger, more active character.

[alatar]

Gandalf has not returned. Frodo, filled with foreboding, decides he must leave the Shire without waiting for Gandalf (either Gandalf proposed his plan earlier as in the book, or Frodo decides for himself to seek Bilbo and his Elvish friends in Rivendell).
Frodo leaves just in time as he hears the Gaffer being questioned by a Nazgûl.
Etc...
I'm just spitballing off the top of my head, but I think something along these line would be a little cleaner, and also make Frodo a stronger, more active character.

Does Frodo know that Bilbo has gone off to Rivendell? Is that stated previously? And Gandalf points Frodo to Bree, which I think would have been better if he were to point him to Rivendell after going though Bree ("I'll meet you at the Prancing Pony in Bree; if I'm not there, then try to make it onto Rivendell."). He could even have said something about meeting someone along the way who may help, kind of like the elves whom Frodo meets who put out the word that he's out and about.

And by the by, my statement regarding Gandalf smoking in the corner of Bag End was silly. Isn't that the exact way Frodo encounters Strider? The audience, seeing all of the repetition might start thinking that the smoking lobby was underwriting the film ("Good guys smoke in the dark..." or "By their smoke you will know them.").

[Mister Underhill]

I think Gandalf has a line, something like, "He's gone to stay with the Elves." Anyway, if we're rewriting, it's easy enough to have Frodo know or be told that Bilbo is in Rivendell. The details of the plan can be figured out; the important changes are that we'd remove the Gandalf travel/research bit, Gandalf would have a more reasonable reason for leaving Frodo and the Ring in the Shire, and Frodo would become a more active character.

[Essex]

I think Gandalf has a line, something like, "He's gone to stay with the Elves." Anyway, if we're rewriting, it's easy enough to have Frodo know or be told that Bilbo is in Rivendell. The details of the plan can be figured out; the important changes are that we'd remove the Gandalf travel/research bit, Gandalf would have a more reasonable reason for leaving Frodo and the Ring in the Shire, and Frodo would become a more active character.Why?

remove the Gandalf travel/research bit - This happens in the book, so it should stay.

Gandalf would have a more reasonable reason for leaving Frodo and the Ring in the Shire - this is a 3 hour movie, we can't show and extra few moths in the Shire whilst we've built up the tension to a high degree.

and Frodo would become a more active character - Frodo becomes an active character, and indeed it is one of the defining bits in this movie - when he graps the ring as says 'What must I do.' - marvellous line and acting, showing he HAS become active and taken Action.


Then, moments later, this same character does something that to me is out of character, and the only reason that I can posit for the action is cheap thrill.Ok, partly I think it is done for the 'thrill' - (but not a cheap one) - We have built the last few scenes building up the tension around this ring being the One Ring - We have to remember it is a movie and not a mini series where we cantake things at a more sedate pace - the movie has to move along - so making Gandalf appear nervous / scared / worried that Frodo stilli has the Ring works for me. It is definately not on the top of my 'Annoyed by the Changes' List! - We have Gandalf in this state of mind to tie in with him sending Frodo off straight away - and this ties in with the Ring wraiths hunting Baggins down - I'm sorry to keep harping on about this, but he's just building the suspense up.

[Lathriel]

I actually like the Green Dragon scene. I think its okay. The rest of the movie is pretty serious anyway.
The killing of the the hobbit is completely unnessecary. The first time I saw it in the theatres I really didn't like that part.
It doesn't bother me that the letters take a while to appaer because it gives time for Frodo to say there is nothing there, and then to say there is something there which makes the whole scene more dramatic since Gandalf can show his reaction which I absolutley like. And I still see his fist reaction as relief.
I also like the part where the Shire is shown at sunrise and all is peaceful untill the black Rider steps into the frame. Its like, "oh look at the lovely shire,its so peaceful." (Black rider appears) Never mind" I like all the scenery shots but I think this movie is awesome at always using the scenery to the best advantage.
I was really glad they put the woodelves back in, if only for a cameo.
The time thing doesn't bother me since it would really undermine the point themovie is trying to establish. If the movie said 17 years later...Some people might be wondering why the ring is seen as such a powerful object. When the characters get panicked about it they might be thinking,"So? Nothing happened in 17 years" I guess the point I am trying to get at is that the need for quick action is lost.
I really like this sequence in general. It took me a few times of watching the movie before I figured out that Gollum shouted, "Mordor, Sauron!"

[The Saucepan Man]

Hmm, may be I am missing something, but there appears to be much wailing and gnashing of teeth here over what seem to me to be some fairly trivial issues.

Working from memory, none of the issues being discussed here gave me any cause for concern or confusion when I first watched FotR at the cinema. Admittedly, it was some time since I had last read the book at that point, but this sequence of scenes seemed to me to pass pretty much as I recalled from the book. I think that I did notice the attenuated timeline, but it didn't impinge at all upon my enjoyment of the film. Watching it, it all seemed pretty logical to me. I therefore find it difficult to see how any of these issues can comprise real criticisms of the film, in the sense of making it any less understandable or internally credible.

To be a bit more specific:

The timeline is not the same as that of the book. But it works for me. It flows pretty logically and, essentially in film terms, swiftly. I am with those who say that an apparent gap of more than a few months, let alone a few years, would have created unnecessary confusion and destroyed the tension that Jackson carefully builds up in these scenes. To my mind, the attenuated timeline enhances the film as a film.

The Rider beheading the Hobbit is not an issue for me, one way or the other. If anything, it demonstrates the Ringwraiths as a physical, rather than merely a psychological, threat, and is therefore likely to make the need to escape them more real in the minds of most audience members.

I believe Gandalf's visit to Minas Tirith's library to be important, since it enables the audience to understand how Gandalf comes to discover that this is indeed the One Ring. It explains why the appearance of the inscription on the Ring shows Gandalf and Frodo that this is the One Ring. The more observant members of the audience (and those who have read the book) will realise that this would have involved a round trip of some months and so assume that this is how long Gandalf took. The issue will be irrelevant to less observant audience members.

I suppose that it is slightly against Gandalf's character to jump out at Frodo from the darkness. I understand Mister Underhill's point about avoiding the temptation to use a great shot or moment if it undermines other parts of the film. However, given that it did not occur to me as being out of character when I watched the film, I don't see it as a big issue. I should imagine that most people are too busy enjoying the moment of shock that it creates to worry about whether it is the sort of thing that Gandalf would do. It could also be argued, I suppose, that it serves to illustrate Gandalf's worried state of mind, as a result of his discovery that this may be the One Ring. He is so preoccupied with it that he overlooks how his sudden appearance will startle Frodo. Nevertheless, of all the points raised here, this seems to me to be the most valid.

The delay in the words appearing on the Ring is just not an issue for me at all. It is not inconsistent with anything else in the film. When we see Isildur with the Ring, the inscription is already there because the Ring was already hot when he picked it up. When the Ring falls into Mount Doom, the inscription appears after a delay, so that is entirely consistent with what we see here. In these circumstances, I see no reason why Jackson should not play around a little with the audience's expectations and use the moment to show the states of mind of Gandalf and Frodo in their words and expressions.

One point that I think could possibly cause confusion is the fact that it remains unexplained how Gandalf uncovered Gollum's story. However, since this point did not occur to me when I first watched the film, I don't see it as a major issue. We can assume that there was good reason for Gandalf to have this knowledge, without actually knowing the reason.

Finally, I don't think that it will occur to many to wonder why Gandalf considers it more important to visit the head of his Order than to accompany Frodo and Sam. The reason for Gandalf's visit to Saruman is well explained and credible in the circumstances. After all, he does not know that the Ringwraiths are in the Shire. The more likely audience reaction is: "Oh no! Gandalf's going of to see his boss leaving Sam and Frodo alone to face those Black Riders, because he doesn't know that they are so close." Thus, the situation contributes to the rising tension.

OK, so this post may sound like I am Jackson's apologist. In some respects I suppose that I am, largely because of my admiration for his immense achievement. But that does not hold true for the entire film trilogy. There are many changes from book to film that I think are worth challenging because they do create internal inconsistencies or because I think that a different approach could have made the films better. But I see little point in criticising changes for the sake of it, particularly ones which are, on any analysis, minor and which, in my humble opinion, do little to impair the film and, indeed, in some cases actually enhance it.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

One of the displays I most enjoyed at the LotR Exhibition (which I saw in Houston this summer) was that of the various books, rolls, etc. from the Minas Tirith library. It was amazing to see the details of those documents - written in various scripts and handwritings, different languages, bound or rolled or flat. Some could be read, including Isildur's account, if I remember rightly. Even though the various papers and parchments appeared only briefly, they were made as if they had a genuine historical background. Wonderful!

[Lalwendë]

Hmm, may be I am missing something, but there appears to be much wailing and gnashing of teeth here over what seem to me to be some fairly trivial issues.

Hey, is this not the Downs equivalent of pedants' corner? I thought some nitpicking (in a constructive, critical sense of course...) would be the order of the day, counteracting our gushing appreciations. :p

I think what Lal is saying (correct me if I'm wrong, Lal), is that the sequence is edited in such a way as to make you think a Nazgûl got to Bag End ahead of Gandalf --
"There's no Bagginses here. They're all up in Hobbiton... that way!"
Songs and beers and table-talk at the inn.
Frodo staggers home -- it's creepy in there -- OMG! Is that black-robed dude there waiting for him?
Ahh! Oh, no, it's just Gandalf. Don't jump out of the shadows like that Gandalf, you nearly gave me a heart attack.
Frodo digs out the Ring.
Gandalf throws it in the fire. It's the Ring. Hoo-boy, it's gonna be good when that black-cloacked dude gets there. Should be any second now...
Wait, they're having tea? What's with all this talking? C'mon, black-cloaked dude, use your spurs or something.
Oh -- there's the wraith, and now he's got a buddy. Sweet! Go ahead and pack, Frodo, you're toast.
Sam, you want some too? Okay, black-cloaked dude attack imminent...
It's morning? Did the black-cloaked dudes decide to stop at a motel and catch some shuteye, or...?

Yes, that's exactly it. It does give the impression that the Ringwraiths are slightly incompetent at hunting down the ring. They've been given Gollum's information which only seems to lack a postcode, and all they have to do is scare a few Hobbits who seem more than willing to give up Frodo's whereabouts. Couple this with the impression already put across that The Shire may well be little more than a village, it seems a bit surprising that the Ringwraiths are in reality quite a long way off Bag End.

I don't mind the tension of the 'Gandalf grab' moment quite so much, but it is the sense of the passage of time which is all wrong to me. Yes, Frodo does only have a narrow escape in the books, but he does know that he has to go for a long while in advance. one of the reasons he is so tardy is that he is 'still in love with the Shire', as Bilbo put it in a previous scene. So Film Frodo is forcibly ejected from his home while Book Frodo is left to his own devices and only just makes it.

One of the displays I most enjoyed at the LotR Exhibition (which I saw in Houston this summer) was that of the various books, rolls, etc. from the Minas Tirith library. It was amazing to see the details of those documents - written in various scripts and handwritings, different languages, bound or rolled or flat. Some could be read, including Isildur's account, if I remember rightly. Even though the various papers and parchments appeared only briefly, they were made as if they had a genuine historical background. Wonderful!

That would have been a splendid job, to make props for the film! I would have been an expert in making old documents as I spent many an hour at primary school making 'authentic treasure maps' by taking my newly crayoned map, burning the edges and then soaking the lot in tea to stain it. ;)

[Essex]

In amongst all this nitpicking, (well said Mr Saucepan!), I watched the scenes yet again tonight - I was drawn to the encompassing point (the reason maybe) for of all this tension that has been racked up - It's when Frodo says "what must I do" AND HE GRASPS THE RING. HE CLAIMS THE RING THERE AND THEN. This is what all the scenes have been building up to. Frodo claiming the Ring, and the start of the Quest. (I now realise why Jackson had movie Frodo keep the Ring in the Chest - he did not want him to claim it until this point)

You can see Gandalf's reaction after this - He is proud, and grateful that Frodo has finally realised the danger his land is under, and sees that Frodo has taken it on himself.

What must I do - One of the best lines in the movie (and it wasn't even a Tolkien line was it??!!! Sacre Bleu!)

Anyway, what a wonderful piece of work Jackson has done with these scenes to get us to this point.

[Mister Underhill]

I spent many an hour at primary school making 'authentic treasure maps' by taking my newly crayoned map, burning the edges and then soaking the lot in tea to stain it.I used the same procedure to gin up many a prop for D&D -- though as an American I of course used coffee instead of tea. ;)
there appears to be much wailing and gnashing of teeth here over what seem to me to be some fairly trivial issues I wouldn't say wailing or gnashing. At most grumbling, muttering, and maybe a little hair-pulling. Let's be reasonable.
and Frodo would become a more active character - Frodo becomes an active character, and indeed it is one of the defining bits in this movie - when he graps the ring as says 'What must I do.' - marvellous line and acting, showing he HAS become active and taken Action. Hey, if it works for you, more power to you. I think overall Jackson/Woods's Frodo is far less active than book Frodo. Though my problems in these early sequences are relatively minor, I think we'll start to see this trend continue and grow fairly soon (Weathertop, anyone?).

P.S. -- I still say this doesn't have to turn into a shouting match between critics and Jackson defenders. Just because there are things I'd change or that don't work for me doesn't mean I don't respect his "immense achievement". We're just talking, just doing some armchair quarterbacking.

[The Saucepan Man]

I wouldn't say wailing or gnashing. At most grumbling, muttering, and maybe a little hair-pulling. Let's be reasonable.Sorry, should have included a ;) there ...

:rolleyes:

[Mister Underhill]

It's when Frodo says "what must I do" AND HE GRASPS THE RING. HE CLAIMS THE RING THERE AND THEN.Nice point about Frodo claiming -- or at least taking charge of -- the Ring at this point.

[The Saucepan Man]

I still say this doesn't have to turn into a shouting match between critics and Jackson defenders.You'll hear no shouting from me, but I will not hesitate to stick my oar in if I feel that criticisms are unjust or where I think that there are reasonable grounds to support decisions that Jackson made. When I do so, my intention is not to shout anyone down or divert the thread into camps of mutually opposed views, but rather to put an alternative view across and encourage people to look at things from a slightly different perspective, and thereby (I hope) provoke creative discussion.

As I said, there are many areas of the films which I consider ripe for discussion and, yes, criticism too. I agree, for example, that the Frodo of the film is a very different character from the Frodo of the book and, in many ways, a weaker one. However, rather than simply saying "Pah! that's not the Frodo I know. Curse Jackson!"*, I would encourage everyone to consider how Jackson develops the character of Frodo, why he chose to portray Frodo in this way, how it works (or doesn't work) in the context of the film, what is gained and lost by this portrayal, how it ties in with Jackson's themes and his development of the other characters etc etc.

My aim is to encourage everyone to consider whether they dislike a particular aspect simply because it is different from the book, and therefore different from their established understanding of the story, or whether there are good reasons why a particular change doesn't work in the context of the film story or does not work as well as the book story. And also to consider why Jackson made particular changes and whether there are reasonable grounds to support his decisions.

Hence my post above, which questions whether some of the points raised really impair the films, whether they would really matter to the majority of the viewers, or whether they just rankle with afficionados of the book because they present the story in a slightly different way.

That said, I acknowledge, Mister U, that the seeds of subsequent difficulties may well be sown in such seemingly trivial matters and I look forward to considering, as the discussion develops, whether choices made by Jackson in these opening scenes inevitably drove him down a road littered with pitfalls.

*Exaggerated for effect - I appreciate that no one here is really saying that.

[Lathriel]

I like the active Mount Doom, even the most dim-witted viewer will figure out something bad is about to happen. It also looks very dramatic. I liked the fact that PJ decided not to show the whole of Minas Tirith so that it was still a surprise by the time ROTK came into theatres.
I never noticed before but when the black riders galop out of the gate you can see some Gondorian remains on the gate in the form of two men, on on each side holding a sword.
I also like the reflection of the elvish letters on Frodo's face.
There are two of my favourite lines in this sequence. One form Gandlaf, "You can learn all there is to know about Hobbits in a month and yet after a hundred years they can still surprise you."
and "It is a dangerous bussiness,Frodo going out your door...."

[Essex]

.......I acknowledge, Mister U, that the seeds of subsequent difficulties may well be sown in such seemingly trivial matters and I look forward to considering, as the discussion develops, whether choices made by Jackson in these opening scenes inevitably drove him down a road littered with pitfalls.Yes, totally agree with this point - I'll defend the parts of the movie that have changed that don't relly 'matter' - ie time line of 17 years, frodo leaving at once etc, but I will draw the line at changes that cause difficulties and inconsistencies later on - ie the power of the Ring and Sauron being able to 'see' the wearer when he puts it on (and even inconsistencies around THIS - ie weathertop, where was he then?)

[alatar]

Hmm, may be I am missing something, but there appears to be much wailing and gnashing of teeth here over what seem to me to be some fairly trivial issues.

Surely we've not seen real "wailing and gnashing of teeth" yet, as I was withholding the real deal for the other movies in the trilogy, at which point my rabid frothing may require restraint in the form of multiple sedatives and rope. ;)

An example of a trivial issue that may be important later is the 'Gandalf shoulder-grab cheap thrill.' Initially I wasn't sure why this bothered me, and as the movie moves on I hadn't had the time to think about it for long. However, here in the SbS, I was able to figure out why it bothered me, and deduced it to the 'out-of-characterness' of the Gandalf character as created by PJ. Again, admittedly, a few frames in the ocean, but what we see is that PJ is willing to sacrifice character consistency for a not-full-retail-price thrill.

This is what (to me) the SbS is all about: understanding PJ.

Or, in other words, getting inside his head without the messiness of a hatchet ;).

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Originally posted by Alatar

Surely we've not seen real "wailing and gnashing of teeth" yet, as I was withholding the real deal for the other movies in the trilogy, at which point my rabid frothing may require restraint in the form of multiple sedatives and rope.
--------------------
I quite agree. In my view, FOTR is by far the best of the three movies.
I've watched part or all of it more then once, and saw it many times
in the theater, but I couldn't watch TTT and ROTK in movie theaters more
then once or twice. Although the second and third certainly have their
moments, there are also some marked errors in moviemaking (but that's
a ways off). :)

[Mister Underhill]

Wood elves?!? Are we to assume that Frodo knows the difference between Wood elves and Stone elves (and their assorted cousins) by the sound made by their passing? But we get more information about the elves regardless, and Sam's line is fitting, as the world is a sadder place now that the elves have left. By the way, in these processions/caravans, who decides who gets to ride the horses? Is it always a person of higher station, someone frail, the owner of the horse, what? And what happens to the horses when they reach the Grey Havens? Just something that I've always wondered.
Any other thoughts on the Wood Elves in this sequence? I must admit that I've always been far more a fan of hobbits than of Elves, all remote and world-weary and perfect. They're definitely a challenge to portray, and I have pretty mixed feelings about Jackson's take on them.

The soft-focus glowiness sorta throws me, but I think it's the music that really doesn't work for me in this bit. As a piece of soundtrack, it's very nice, even gives me chills as I watch this scene. But at the same time it seems too stylized. I mean, we're supposed to get that the song we hear on the soundtrack -- with all its perfect studio harmonizations -- is being sung by the Elves as they march to the Havens, right? Technically I don't see any violation of Tolkien here, but I can't say I buy these Elves. Again, it's a very small detail, but I think I would have preferred the Elf-song to sound more like it was being sung by real creatures walking through a forest.

We'll have more, and perhaps better, opportunities to discuss Jackson's take on Elvishness later, but I'm still curious about others' reactions.

It's also interesting to note this scene's dislocation from its function in the book: the approach of the Elves at a fortuitous moment causes the Black Rider to withdraw. Maybe it's better to save more in-depth discussion of the plot effects for the upcoming encounter with the Nazgûl, but I think it's worth observing that Tolkien uses the scene with the Wood Elves to serve an important story function, whereas Jackson's seemingly minor rearrangement of events causes the scene to lose its purpose, resulting in its rightful excision from the theatrical cut.

[alatar]

I liked how the elves were displayed, with the glowiness and all, yet was just puzzled by the inclusion of the word wood. Why was it added? And if I remember correctly, I don't think that any 'type' of elf is noted later.

[Holbytlass]

I'm going to backtrack for a moment. First off, I want everyone to know where I'm coming from in relation when the movies came out. The movies brought me to the books. I read LOTR 4 months before the FOTR came out and had only gotten to read it a few times. So I was in the "early stages" of a great love affair, when things are fresh and new and every discovery is cosmic. All my senses were hypersensitive when I sat down in that theater.

Second backtrack, when Bilbo finally lets go of the ring and it lands hard (on the floor and in my gut), that was my "oh, $%#@&*!!" moment. That's when I realized this was serious.

Interestingly enough, it bounced away from Gollum because it abandoned him but stayed when Bilbo released it. I suppose this would be a "ring POV", it must have known the riders where coming to find itself and wanted to stay with someone not powerful, and/or it didn't want to be "claimed" by Gandalf since he was there. Maybe that's why there was this extra show of power when Gandalf tried to pick it up (BTW, scared the shoes off me).

It's Gandalf's thoughts when Frodo says he can't see any markings on the Ring. I put it to you that there is DISSAPOINTMENT on his face (not relief as everyone else seemed to think at the time) - The reason behind this is that it was Gandalf's JOB to find the Ring so he could help the people of Middle-earth defeat Suaron. He thought he'd found it, but for that second, alas no.This actually makes sense to my question of why would Gandalf say the ring "is quite cool" and dumps it into Frodo's hand before fully knowing it's the one ring. Had it been a regular ring it would've burned.

Somewhere the "Rosie knows an idiot when she sees one" line was touted to be just wonderful, but to me it's a joke that isn't really funny.
I don't find those lines funny, but that part does make Sam endearing to me. He knows he isn't the smartest hobbit around, but he is wise enough to know his limits but never use his limits as an excuse not to do things, or shirk in anyway.


The wood elf scene, I could do without. Later it is explained how and why the elves are leaving Middle-earth. Other than to see two doe-eyed handsome men, it could have been cut.

All in all, loved the landscape, interactions between Gandalf-Frodo-Sam very good. Loved how scary Rider was talking, not real important about the head-chop. Fine with the pace of the movie.

[Kath]

This actually makes sense to my question of why would Gandalf say the ring "is quite cool" and dumps it into Frodo's hand before fully knowing it's the one ring. Had it been a regular ring it would've burned.
But it wouldn't. It had only been in the fire long enough for the paper to burn and gold has an extremely high melting point, so it probably wouldn't have been hot at all. Barely even warm.

On the wood elves front, I think PJ was likely trying to include bits from the books because it was the EE, and maybe to show Sam's fascination with them for a bit of character development. It was a shame that he put them so out of context, because here the general feel of sadness that it generates just doesn't fit. At the moment Frodo and Sam are a little freaked out that's fair enough, but they haven't even met a Black Rider, they have no idea of what awaits them, or that this trip they're making for Gandalf will end in tragedy.

[Essex]

In my view, FOTR is by far the best of the three movies.
I've watched part or all of it more then once, and saw it many times
in the theater, but I couldn't watch TTT and ROTK in movie theaters more
then once or twice. Although the second and third certainly have their
moments, there are also some marked errors in moviemaking (but that's
a ways off). :)Off the top of my head I reckon that most people think FOTR is the 'best' movie of the three, and that it is the most 'faithful' to the books

I put it to you that FOTR is the LEAST faithful to the books inasmuch as it has the most changes to any of the three films. (maybe not the BIGGEST changes, but the MOST changes..)

I suppose this is another thread in itself...............

PS and of course, in my humble opinion, rotk is by far the best film (and book) of the trilogy......

[alatar]

Tuor of Gondolin and Essex,

We probably should start a poll regarding the 'best' movie of the trilogy, if one doesn't exist already, as such global declarations are not really part of the SbS - not that I don't want to add my opinion :). We might state our feelings regarding the particular sequence, but as I think that we all realized before the start of the SbS, simply stating how one feels is more interesting when it is accompanied with why.

As an example, I might assume that Essex prefers RotK over FotR and TTT as RotK has less changes or RotK is more faithful to the source - though really I cannot be sure (again that's not the discussion) and don't want to guess. But at least there's an indication of why. Seeing something in one of the sequences that really makes (or breaks) the film for you would also be interesting to read - the more specific the better. I'd wager that some of you know what breaks RotK for me...Hopefully when I've stated my likes and dislikes in the opening post I've also supplied clear reasons why.

If not, be sure to let me know.

Cheer. - alatar

[alatar]

From listening to the audio CDs this morning I learned (relearned) that Gandalf was identified by his familiar knock at the window or door. Contrast this with PJ's 'breaking in and entering' Wizard.

[Farael]

From listening to the audio CDs this morning I learned (relearned) that Gandalf was identified by his familiar knock at the window or door. Contrast this with PJ's 'breaking in and entering' Wizard.

I can always count on you to bring up the proper comment.... It was a bit of a bummer when Gandalf knocked just like anyone else and then threatened to blow the door down the hill. I was looking forward to hear a distinct tap-tararap-tap or something. And I really think Gandalf uttering such needless threat is VERY out of character....

I think PJ has this tendency to portray wizzards as strong, all-mighty rather than compassive, thoughtful types.... I guess it sells more, but that's not the "Tolkien" wizzard. We don't see Gandalf using his powers unless it's extremely necessary (in Tolkien's work) yet PJ seems to want to show them as really tough, fire-ball casting wizzards.

[alatar]

We don't see Gandalf using his powers unless it's extremely necessary (in Tolkien's work) yet PJ seems to want to show them as really tough, fire-ball casting wizzards.
Unless confronted by Ents (Saruman) or the Witch-King (Gandalf), then the wizards turn into over-ripe bananas.

[doug*platypus]

As I stated in the last SbS thread (my mistake... I was not aware of the delineation of the sequences), I disagreed with seeing the Eye of Sauron when Gandalf goes to pick up the Ring. Firstly, if it is so obviously His Ring, then why bother with the fire test at all? Secondly, I think it is one of the greatest mistakes made in the films to show evil, undisguised and unambiguous, too early. We are not left to ponder the nature of either the Ring or the Black Riders. I think a greater sense of mystery could have been maintained by holding back. For example, the scene where we see the Nine ride out from Minas Morgul following the torture of Sméagol. Great, great looking shot. Pure eye candy. But unnecessary, and in the view of this particular Platypus, unwanted.

I loved seeing the lettering on the Ring reflected on Frodo's face. Again, a great looking shot. I did miss one of my favourite lines, however:
"I cannot read the fiery letters," said Frodo in a quavering voice.
I didn't care for the fact that Frodo kept the Ring successfully hidden and off his person in the chest for all those hours/weeks/months/whatever the movie timeline was. I think it would have been a greater testament to the Ring's evil aspect if Frodo carried it on his person, unwilling to be parted from It. And I think a pivotal point was left out from the book:
Gandalf laughed grimly. "You see? Already you too, Frodo, cannot easily let It go, nor will to damage It."
But PJ made this change for a purpose, I suppose. That initially Frodo was not corrupted by the Ring.

Speaking from a purely movie point of view now, I don't see any convincing reason why we needed to be shown Gandalf's research in Minas Tirith. It would have been perfectly acceptable for Gandalf to turn up after an extended absence with his new knowledge. Similarly, we do not need to see the torture of Sméagol; it should be enough for us as viewers that Gandalf brings the knowledge of it to Frodo. Unfortunately knowing the geography as I do from having read the book, it seems ludicrous that Gandalf would journey from The Shire to Minas Tirith, to The Shire, then all the way back to Isengard. It would be far more likely if Gandalf were to simply reappear in The Shire from who knows where before making the final test, and then legging it to Saruman's place.

Once our characters have established that It is indeed the One Ring, it seems plausible to me that Frodo should have to leave The Shire immediately. Dare I say it, it perhaps makes more sense than Gandalf allowing Frodo to wait for some months before setting out. Although, in Tolkien's defence (ah, that's more like it), Gandalf was unaware of the coming of the Nine Riders to the west. I agree, however, with the earlier poster (sorry, can't recall who) who said that it was a bit unrealistic for Gandalf to expect to travel to Isengard and back in the time it would take Frodo to get to Bree. I don't know how to explain a way out of this one, and apparently neither did PJ, who seemingly put that one in the too hard basket and ignored it.

The appearance of the Wood Elves doesn't serve as great a purpose as the appearance of Gildor Inglorion in the book. Gildor saves the hobbits from discovery by the Black Rider, and sends out messages to the other wandering companies, and Rivendell, as well as serving as Sam's first exposure to the Fair Folk. In the movie, no explanation is given as to how Arwen knew that Strider and co were on the move and pursued by Black Riders (maybe her elfy-sense was tingling? Another for the too hard basket, methinks). However, I can understand why PJ included this scene: to provide more of a back story for the Elves, and explain that they were leaving the shores of Middle Earth and thus would not play as large a part in the story as viewers may have expected. Of course, Elrond explained as much to Gandalf in Rivendell, so I cannot in fact find any purpose for including the Wood Elves, and I'm not surprised the scene did not make the theatrical release.

That is actually my main gripe with the movies: not that they omitted, altered or added, but that in many instances they added or retained material that was not crucial, wasting preciouss screen time. Hey, if we're making scenes for the extended editions of the DVDs, why not give us the Barrow Downs? Or Frodo's song at the Prancing Pony?