[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by alatar

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.

Originally Posted by alatar

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.

Originally Posted by alatar

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.

Originally Posted by mormegil

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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).