LotR1-FotR-Seq03

[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.

[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).

[alatar]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

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) 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?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[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.

[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.