Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Essex
I can't win with you guys. I try to find reasons for things happening in the film from the text, and it still gets brushed aside. The sequence took place during the DAY, and the nazgul do not see the world of light as we do. So if they can't see properly, why not a diversion using Sound? And I'm not bothered whether people who haven't read the books get it or not, it's for book readers to understand the point.
|
Starting posting to this thought, then got pulled into the "Is Eru God?" thread.
Anyway, let's back away for a moment and consider what we're doing here. We're watching sets of scenes (actually the entire movie in smaller bites) of the Peter Jackson film interpretation of JRRT's LotR, then discussing our thoughts, impressions, likes, dislikes, etc. To me part of the 'task,' if it can be thought of as such, is to get into the mind of PJ et al and see why they created the movies that they did. They assumedly read for the same books that you and I have read. I have my interpretatons of them; others see them vastly different in some instances. Likewise these movies.
But what I'm trying to fish out is the
mindset, the game plan, the playbook.
Each frame in this movie is here for a reason. Each thing from the books that isn't here was removed for a reason. These reasons could be:
- different understanding/lack of understanding
For example, as stated almost ad nauseum by me, I was uncomfortable with Gandalf sneaking up and grabbing Frodo. Who cares? No one, even me, ran out of the theater at that moment saying, "I want my money back!" Really, I don't even care that much. But what I deduced from that was that the PJ team would sacrifice character for thrill.
Okay, that's his way of doing things, and so we might see it again.
Another example is the Eye. PJ wanted Sauron as the Eye introduced early in FotR and so we get the scene in Bree. Again I wasn't writing letters addressed to New Zealand after seeing the Eye, but what I think that we deduced was that PJ is more concerned with keeping Sauron in the picture than with logic. Note: if this hasn't already been stated, the appearance of the Eye is between Saruman bookends. "The White Wizard isn't the only baddie here, don't forget!"
And my last example is the Nazgul chase. First, the Nazgul is easily distracted. Next, the wraith on horse cannot harm any of the four Hobbits (even with a harsh word like "He-Hobbit!"
). So to me the result is watered down Nazgul, and we'll see why that this (assumedly) was decided when we get to Weathertop.
Anyway, I'm guessing that the above makes sense only to me, and when I read this tomorrow even I won't know what I was trying to say. But in short, I'm enjoying the SbS and all (yes, all) of your thoughts immensely, and I look forward each week to writing each new thread (EDIT) and reading your posts.
EDIT: Knew that the brain would kick in today. Anyway, thought to add that all of the reasons/considerations listed above had to be weighed against the others to determine the best for the film - not just for PJ, not just for us fans, but the best for ...well...I'm not really sure.
For example, assume that PJ had considered putting Tom Bombadil into FotR, or even FotR:EE. Surely he would have delighted the "tommaniacs," but might have put off not only other less interested viewers but also those amongst his own staff who were frantic just trying to get the reduced version out of the door ("Just how does he expected us to include this character when we cannot distill Tom's character into one word?"). And why would he add a character who gets his own scene when this same character does not 'come back' in the end, even in the books?
So, PJ might have thought that Tom just wasn't worth the headaches, resources, etc. In this instance he and I would agree.