LotR1-FotR-Seq03

[Essex]

what I mean, Alatar, (and we'll no doubt get onto it later), is that the Ring has been made more powerful, and a direct contact to Sauron - this is shown when he says 'I can see you' (or something like this!) when Frodo puts the Ring on in Bree.

Also, we therefore never see Sam wear the Ring near Cirith Ungol - therefore Sam is not a Ring Bearer - therefore Sam doesn't follow Frodo years later to the West - (and also Frodo got on Jacksons Middle-earth's 'Last' ship...........)
anyway - more on this later.

I want to raise another point I had a massive slanging match on on another forum a couple of years back - It's Gandalf's thoughts when Frodo says he can't see any markings on the Ring. I put it to you that there is DISSAPOINTMENT on his face (not relief as everyone else seemed to think at the time) - The reason behind this is that it was Gandalf's JOB to find the Ring so he could help the people of Middle-earth defeat Suaron. He thought he'd found it, but for that second, alas no.

Anyway, this is a purely film point, as it doesn't happen in the book anyway.....

PS

and that even Bilbo used it sparingly, if at all.

he seemed to put it on OK during the Party!!!!! and seemed to have no trouble - indeed he seemed mighty pleased with himself when he put it back in his pocket - so no direct line to Sauron there..............no if we did have a 17 year gap then I might (perhaps) understand the direct link to Sauron theme.

This is one of my major bug bears with the film.......

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Essex

what I mean, Alatar, (and we'll no doubt get onto it later), is that the Ring has been made more powerful, and a direct contact to Sauron - this is shown when he says 'I can see you' (or something like this!) when Frodo puts the Ring on in Bree.

Okay, didn't see the Bree connection in this sequence. I think that all of that hullabaloo regarding Sauron seeing Frodo was to repetitiously connect the Ring with Sauron and evil. And note that timeline-wise, the Bree scene occurs after Mount Doom erupts. Was this why Frodo doesn't get the same experience as Gandalf when he briefly handles the Ring in Bag End after Bilbo leaves (though he handles is later...hmmm)? Could it be that unless he wears it, he is not sensitive enough or as perceptive as Gandalf is to see Sauron until Sauron awakes?

Also, we therefore never see Sam wear the Ring near Cirith Ungol - therefore Sam is not a Ring Bearer - therefore Sam doesn't follow Frodo years later to the West.

Though we don't explicitly see Sam wear the Ring at Cirith Ungol. I will allow that it happened off screen (something I learned to permit from our many discussions ).

I want to raise another point I had a massive slanging match on on another forum a couple of years back - It's Gandalf's thoughts when Frodo says he can't see any markings on the Ring. I put it to you that there is DISSAPOINTMENT on his face (not relief as everyone else seemed to think at the time) - The reason behind this is that it was Gandalf's JOB to find the Ring so he could help the people of Middle-earth defeat Suaron. He thought he'd found it, but for that second, alas no.

Very interesting idea! To me, it seems that Gandalf is hoping this is one of the lesser Rings, and when Frodo confirms that it's not, Gandalf expresses sadness as he realizes that either Sauron will recover it and conquer all, or that it will be used to overthrow Sauron somehow, yet Frodo at the very least will suffer along the way. What you are saying is that Gandalf was hoping that this was indeed the One, and was disappointed when Frodo initially didn't see the elvish script. Gandalf is hoping that with the resurfacing of the One Ring that doom is near, and his work will come to an end, one way or another.


Not that I'd want to start a poll, but how have others interpretted Gandalf's reactions?

PS he seemed to put it on OK during the Party!!!!! and seemed to have no trouble - indeed he seemed mighty pleased with himself when he put it back in his pocket - so no direct line to Sauron there..............no if we did have a 17 year gap then I might (perhaps) understand the direct link to Sauron theme.

Rewatch the scene when you get a chance. As Bilbo's speech wanes, he becomes more nervous and to me unbalanced. It's like he doesn't want to put on the Ring. When he reaches Bag End, however, he's pretty chipper and pleased with himself. Was he anxious because he was going to disappear in front of a crowd? Or was it the 'taste' that he would get from the Ring? After getting his fix, he's better, though maybe a bit more on the darker side of things. To me it mirrors an addict's actions.

Great thoughts, by the by.

[Mister Underhill]

This thread has moved very quickly, and there are many great observations and insights here. I only have time to chip in a few thoughts here and there:

Voice-over narration
According to Hollywood legend, Harrison Ford did the studio-ordered narration for Blade Runner in the flattest monotone he could manage in hopes that it would be so bad that they wouldn't use it after all. It seems to me I've since read denials of that story, but make of it what you will. I love the narration in Conan the Barbarian, which is presented in the form of a "sidekick" character recounting a tale from the past, and in Apocalypse Now, in which the narrator -- Willard -- narrates events more or less as they happen, almost as if they were journal entries or something. Narration provides an elegant solution to the exposition problems in Braveheart.

Overall I don't think I'd have liked more of it in LotR than is there, but I might have more to say on this later...

The Time-line
I think PJ definitely fails to give the sense of much time passing while Gandalf is away, particularly in the theatrical release. I saw it in the theater with non-fans and fans who hadn't read LotR in years, and I distinctly remember that they were confused by the sequence. Tolkien, though he was no dramatist, may have had the right instincts here when he said he favored abridgement over compression "with resultant over-crowding and confusion, blurring of climaxes, and general degradation". I'd like to come back to this point later with more ideas, but no time right now, alas.

Frodo
We start to see the differences between the book and the Jackson/Woods characterization. I really dislike the vacant, dumb smile on Frodo's face at the Green Dragon when he toasts Sandyman's "wisdom". This is the beginning of a trend of weakening Frodo's character which I can't quite understand. Is it the Gaffer who comments that Frodo is "cracking", just like Bilbo? The only sign we've seen so far that he's different from any other hobbit is the first shot of him reading a book.

Like Essex, I missed the scene where Frodo can't throw the Ring into his hearth.

Cheap Suspense
In this sequence, Jackson also unveils for the first time his willingness to trade plot and character logic for cheap suspense. The already rough Gandalf-research/Nazgul-unleashed sequence becomes even more confusing with the inclusion of an attempt to trick the audience into thinking that there might be a Nazgul waiting in Bag End for Frodo. I hate how Gandalf reaches out of the darkness and grabs Frodo's shoulder -- would anyone ever do that except in a movie?

Another of these is the bit with the "fiery letters" on the Ring. Why would the letters flare up several seconds after the Ring has been taken from the fire? It's little details like this that add up and bother me over the course of the trilogy.

One of my biggest disappointments in Jackson as a director is his eagerness to go for these transient sort of moments even at the expense of the overall picture.

Things I Like
The models of Barad-dûr and Minas Tirith are fabulous. I really enjoyed the preview of the latter, in particular. The design of the Nazgûl is excellent. And, as has been mentioned many times, lines straight from Tolkien are always welcome.

Back for more later, and maybe more on the POV albatross I raised in the previous thread.

[Rimbaud]

This sequence contains one of the few seconds of film that make the trilogy for me. Sadly the one that really hooked me was McKellan's look to Frodo at the Council that I will have to elaborate expanisvely upon later , but here it is Ian again, with his reaction to the ring. As, perhaps unarguably, the best actor in the picture (and for lack of whom much of TTT doesn't work for me) it behooves Gandalf to make the most of his status. And here he does it brilliantly. Nobody can fail but to be impressed that the Ring is a Nasty Piece of Work by his reaction. For me, this is the clincher on that story-line - from then on the audience knows it's bad; where all the 'bouncing' and Williams music built it up, here one look from a decent actor tells you 300% as much.

Sadly, as happens often in these flicks, Jackson tries very hard to spoil his actors' best work by throwing in a lot of soft-focus jumbalaya with mutterings of riddles and such, but the initial impact was enough and we know.

For the rest of the sequence, I'm with Mr U. It's overly compressed, disorienting, and could perhaps (come on, shout me down) have been done better with a voice-over...?

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Another of these is the bit with the "fiery letters" on the Ring. Why would the letters flare up several seconds after the Ring has been taken from the fire? It's little details like this that add up and bother me over the course of the trilogy.

The same reason the Ring sits for like twenty seconds on the floor of Mount Doom before it finally crumbles and disappears. To build up the tension. From a book perspective, I don't like it, but from a movie perspectice, I think it does what it's supposed to do.

And, my bad in my earlier post. "The Black Rider" track doesn't occur until Sequence 4!

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by Essex

what I mean, Alatar, (and we'll no doubt get onto it later), is that the Ring has been made more powerful, and a direct contact to Sauron - this is shown when he says 'I can see you' (or something like this!) when Frodo puts the Ring on in Bree.

The one analogous event from the book that comes to my mind is when Frodo is seated upon Amon Hen and we read:

And suddently he felt the Eye. There was an eye in the Dark Tower that did not sleep. he knew that it had become aware of his gaze. A fierce eager will was there. It leaped towards him; almost like a finger he felt it, searching for him. Very soon it would nail him down, know just exactly where he was. Amon Lhaw it touched. It glanced upon Tol Brandir - he threw himself from teh seat, crouching, covering his head with his grey hood.

It seems that PJ adapted this part of the book to cinematic form and did it in a respectable way. He was trying to show that Sauron's power is growing and how the ring is tied to him and with Saron's stength increasing his awareness of the ring is increasing and those who use it will be under his eye.

PJ needs to establish this power early on so it is done at this sequence for this exact reason, so the audience knows that Frodo should not use it and later we see the consequences of him using it at Bree.

Sorry if this skipped ahead a bit but it's addressing issues that have arisen due to this sequence.

[Essex]

Yes, Mormegil, but as always, when you start to muck about with the plot (and what a tight superbly conceived plot it is) of LOTR, you begin to see the cracks. For example, Frodo puts on the ring in Bree and INSTANTLY Sauron is there and aware of him.

At Parth Galen, Frodo puts it on the escape Boromir, but Sauron does not seem to be aware of him until his climbed all the way to the top of the Amon Hen and sat near the Seat of Seeing.

So why could he wear it for that amount of time, going up the hill, and to add to this, why not wear it when he came back down (as he does in the book).

It just gives inconsistencies to the story when the scriptwriters come up with their own ideas (or embellishments.....)

Sorry, jumped far, far ahead of myself here with this post - I just want to show that the seeds of many changes that the Scriptwriters do work like falling dominoes all the way through the film...........

[Cailín]

I don't have much time right now, but I do wish to say something about the suggested narration or voice-over in these scenes. The problem is, I think, not only that a voice-over has a way of distancing the viewer from the story, but that later on in the movie, a voice-over would have definitely had no place in the movies. Once you establish a narrator in a movie or a book or any story, you are more or less forced to be consistent and have the narrator make regular appearances throughout the story. Now, I can personally think of very few and perhaps no other points in the three movies where a narrator would have added something to the story. PJ made the right choice by only occasionally let one of the characters narrate something.

About the short scene with the Wood Elves... this has rapidly become one of my favorite moments in the book, which is enough to ensure that I was quite disappointed with the adaptation of that particular scene. I must say that - though this is probably personal - I had never pictured the Elves to be so solemn, but I suppose it's impossible to really capture my image of the Elves on screen.

[Boromir88]

I like how Jackson handled the narration in the beginning. I think it's good to get everyone introduced and into the story, but I don't think it should have been used much more. I wanted to hear Galadriel narrate at the end and sort of close up the storyline of the Fellowship members. I'm reminded back to Troy, where Sean Bean does the narration in the beginning and then he closes the story in the end. I think that's all the narration that would have worked with LOTR. Get us introduced, and get us a closure (though the narration is not at the end )

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.~Sauce

I agree, and when it comes to movies a lot of people (teens especially) want to be brought right into it from the start. They want it to start off with a bang to get everyone's eyes on the screen and keep them there. It's like a rock concert, you start out with something that'll get the audiences attention and keep them there.

Seabiscuit, slowly progresses into the movie. Now, it's a great movie, well made, good acting, and I loved it. But the story starts out super super slow, and it drags on, once we get to the last half it's a wonderful movie. But, as far as I know Seabiscuit isn't an action/adventure and Jackson needed to do something to start off with a bang. I think this small battle in the beginning, and Sauron's destruction does this quite effectively.

Now we already have this built up tension when we find out Bilbo's ring is the One Ring.

1. The ring wraith 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.

I agree. The first Hobbit encountered was actually Farmer Maggot (as creditted) the Second one I don't know. It does set up an inconsistancy in the movies....Kill or not to Kill? The movie has already set up the Ringwraiths effectively. Jackson portrayed them as terrifying (which they should be), and the best so far that we see of this "Ringwraith Terror" is the encounter with Farmer Maggot.

Also, later on when we see the Ringwraiths, it gets this sense of quiet, and you'll hear a horse neigh, or you'll here it's feet clunking on the ground. I know that subtelty works real well in movies, or suggestion. It's so much different from the slasher horror movies of the day (which catch your eye but are all the same and are quite boring). A lot of the past horror movies would only suggest things, you would see that it's scary and terrifying, but you wouldn't have to see any blood and gore because of it.

I think of the old House on the Haunted Hill. You never see any of the ghosts, you will only here a door slam, the building would shake, you might hear scraping, you'll se a door bend and sway like they are trying to push through, but again you never see the ghosts. This is quite terrifying, and very subtle, creating a lot of tension in the audience despite not seeing the actual ghosts.

I think Jackson does set up the Ringwraiths well, as explained above, but he seems to have to like to pound ideas into our heads. The killing of the 2nd hobbit is useless.

I'll make one more point before I have to go here. I wated to mention Frodo when finding out it was the One Ring, he first wants to hide it, then he tries to give it to Gandalf, but then he says "What must I do?" I love this line, and I think it fits perfectly with Frodo's character (and I can't say that through the whole movie). It shows that Frodo is willing to step up and take the burden of the Ring, he is willing to do his part for the whole life/death of middle-earth. It sets up Frodo as we come to see him, taking up the burden upon himself, knowing something has to be done and he's gotta do it.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Many excellent points above, pro and con: A few comments:
===================

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Another of these is the bit with the "fiery letters" on the Ring. Why would the letters flare up several seconds after the Ring has been taken from the fire? It's little details like this that add up and bother me over the course of the trilogy.

The same reason the Ring sits for like twenty seconds on the floor of Mount Doom before it finally crumbles and disappears. To build up the tension. From a book perspective, I don't like it, but from a movie perspectice, I think it does what it's supposed"
====================
It seems to me, I don't have a copy of LOTR at the moment, that the scene
of the Ring showing letters after a pause was taken from the book.

The depiction of Farmer Maggot was, in its way, as irritating as Denethor.
I believe Tom Bombadil has a high opinion of Maggot, in the book he
refuses to give in to Sharkey, and his dogs weren't the movie wimp.
It would have been better to just have him labeled "unknown hobbit" in
movie credits.
One of the nice little bits in the book was Frodo's reconciliation with
Maggot. Rather then bowlderize the character it would have been better
to exclude him (like Tom Bombadil).

And yes, rewatching FOTR makes you appreciate more how crucial to
the movies IM was.

[alatar]

I would agree with Tuor of Gondolin in regards to naming the hobbit "Farmer Maggot.'' Though his dogs were fearful when the Nazgul did something or other, Farmer Maggot stood his ground. Surely it was daylight and he was on his home turf, yet still a deed worth at least a few bars in a song...

And it seems that a theme in this thread is PJ's lack of subtlety. He gets much right, but there's just that propensity to just take something 'good' and turn the volume up to 11. Watching the appendices included with ROTK EE, you get to see one of his crew just lavish honey-dripping praise on Jackson in regards to biggerBiggerBIGGER! The person actually states that, in the end, Jackson's input/decision was always the infallible 'right' thing to do.

Sure, if I had a chance to be immortalized on these DVDs, I'd say whatever it took too, but it almost looks like the person actually believed it.

Anyway, as we will find out later in regards to the Witch King's mace, the crew thought that what they created for PJ's review was ridiculously too big, yet he sees it and says "Bigger!" So here, in this sequence it's not enough for us to see bits and glimpses of the Ringwraiths - think about what you thought when you read the books. You find yourself reading faster so that you can figure out just what these black-robed things are. Did you reread the paragraphs when Frodo speaks with the elves and with Bombadil to see if you could wring more information out of the same words on the page? Even at Weathertop you really don't get much on the Nine.

Another example in this sequence of a good idea taken a bit too far in seen when Frodo returns to Bag End after drinking at the Green Dragon. We're on the same set/same place, yet it's changed because there's no fire or light. An opened window, innocent enough, allows the wind to stir up some papers. You get a bit of an eerie feeling, yet we haven't done anything stupid yet.

Wham! A disheveled Gandalf grabs Frodo from behind and starts ranting at him.

Was this the same kind old man that took a moment to reassure a young hobbit a scene or two ago? We could have just as easily watched a light appear in the corner, then the glow of Gandalf's pipe illuminating his face. But no! We need tension, and so we will use a character that previously we've taken some care to establish and already, in less than 40 minutes in, have him do something that's out-of-character.

But Gandalf appearing in the corner wouldn't have had the same effect of the 'cat jumping out' trick like you see in many slasher movies. And even if you use the cat trick, the idea is that the audience is expecting/hoping to see the monster come out, and you trick them with the cat. Here, PJ uses the cat yet has already shown us the monster.

PJ is about as subtle as a mumakil in a daisy patch.