LotR1-FotR-Seq02

[Mister Underhill]

I'm not even suggesting that an extremely limited POV is called for, but it's interesting to imagine the alternatives.

For instance, say we didn't have the Prologue, or even Bilbo's introduction to the Shire. We start with Frodo. He's taking a walk around the Shire, so we still get an idea of hobbit-life and what the Shire is like; also, we start to get the idea that Frodo is a bit different than these simple rustic folk.

Then here comes Gandalf.

Frodo jumps in his cart, their dialogue is much the same, except now we focus on Frodo's reactions to Gandalf. Frodo mentions Bilbo's weirdness, sees Gandalf's troubled reaction, presses him on it -- but Gandalf is reticent. "Fine, keep your secrets!" or whatever the dialogue is.

At Bag End, Bilbo and Gandalf greet. Now, when Gandalf gives his "haven't aged a day" line, Frodo is there -- and he takes note of Gandalf's slightly puzzled/troubled reaction. Gandalf wanders off to supervise party/fireworks preparation or something. Inside Bag End, Frodo and Bilbo have a scene that conveys much the same information as the Gandalf/Bilbo scene, but instead it's from Frodo's point-of-view, reacting to Bilbo's "butter scraped over too much bread" line. Certain things are starting to seem strange to him, especially after Gandalf's reactions and mysterious silence...

And so on. You see? So far things aren't too far different in terms of the sheer plot information in each scene, but the choice to focus on Frodo as the POV character shifts the story a bit, has a different effect on the audience.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by alatar

I must say that I'm very surprised that persons do not find PJ's presentation of the Shire to be the spot-on perfect paradise that I do ...

I think that's probably why it doesn't quite ring precisely true with me. The Shire should be a "working" place, a place where Hobbits live out their everyday lives. Jackson's Shire is almost too perfect ...

But I'm really being nitpicky here. I cannot deny that I was delighted to see it there on screen the first time that I saw the film.

What's this? Alatar defending the film while I pick holes in it! What is the world coming to ...?

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

For instance, say we didn't have the Prologue, or even Bilbo's introduction to the Shire.

Fine, but that's going to require a lot of exposition in the dialogue between characters. Jackson chose (or perhaps just instinctively followed) the course likely to appeal to the greatest number of people. Perhaps he did take the easy option, but who can blame him?

Hmm, I think that might become a common refrain from me as this discussion develops ...

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by SPM

but that's going to require a lot of exposition in the dialogue between characters

Not necessarily. You could shift the exposition to later sequences, as Tolkien did (you've saved 8 or 9 minutes by starting with Frodo in my hypothetical which can be used elsewhere). I'm not saying "This is the way it should have been done!", just thinking about a way it could have been done.

Rather than get into a "He took the easy option!"/"Who can blame him?" argument, which is rather played out by now, I'm more interested in looking at what the implications of Jackson's choices are, and in some cases how they might have been different. Isn't that what this discussion is for? Not just as a scene-by-scene rehash of the "Jackson did a great job!"/"This part doesn't match the books!" argument.

I know we're all used to capturing a position and then holding it against all attackers, and I am historically as guilty of that as anyone, but I hope we can investigate how the films might have been different without always arousing counter-attacks from Jackson defenders.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Rather than get into a "He took the easy option!"/"Who can blame him?" argument, which is rather played out by now, I'm more interested in looking at what the implications of Jackson's choices are, and in some cases how they might have been different.

I don't disagree, although I think that this may be difficult, since any suggested alternatives will need to be thought through. Like Jackson's own changes, they will have knock on effects, possibly throughout the trilogy. For example, omitting the Prologue would fundamentally affect the (non-book) audience's attitude to, and relationship with, the Ring. "What's all this fuss about a little Ring" might be one reaction without having seen it's history and past "deeds". The exposition could be inserted by "flashback" early on, say in Gandalf's discussion with Frodo (as in the book), but what effect would this have on the pacing?

I am most certainly not planning on defending the films for the sake of it. But, if we are to look at why Jackson made the choices that he did, we have to take into account all of the factors influencing his decisions. And "played out" though the argument may be, mass marketability is undoubtedly a major factor.