LotR1-FotR-Seq03

[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]

Originally Posted by Essex

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).