LotR1-FotR-Seq03

[Essex]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

I think Gandalf has a line, something like, "He's gone to stay with the Elves." Anyway, if we're rewriting, it's easy enough to have Frodo know or be told that Bilbo is in Rivendell. The details of the plan can be figured out; the important changes are that we'd remove the Gandalf travel/research bit, Gandalf would have a more reasonable reason for leaving Frodo and the Ring in the Shire, and Frodo would become a more active character.

Why?

remove the Gandalf travel/research bit - This happens in the book, so it should stay.

Gandalf would have a more reasonable reason for leaving Frodo and the Ring in the Shire - this is a 3 hour movie, we can't show and extra few moths in the Shire whilst we've built up the tension to a high degree.

and Frodo would become a more active character - Frodo becomes an active character, and indeed it is one of the defining bits in this movie - when he graps the ring as says 'What must I do.' - marvellous line and acting, showing he HAS become active and taken Action.

Originally Posted by Alatar

Then, moments later, this same character does something that to me is out of character, and the only reason that I can posit for the action is cheap thrill.

Ok, partly I think it is done for the 'thrill' - (but not a cheap one) - We have built the last few scenes building up the tension around this ring being the One Ring - We have to remember it is a movie and not a mini series where we cantake things at a more sedate pace - the movie has to move along - so making Gandalf appear nervous / scared / worried that Frodo stilli has the Ring works for me. It is definately not on the top of my 'Annoyed by the Changes' List! - We have Gandalf in this state of mind to tie in with him sending Frodo off straight away - and this ties in with the Ring wraiths hunting Baggins down - I'm sorry to keep harping on about this, but he's just building the suspense up.

[Lathriel]

I actually like the Green Dragon scene. I think its okay. The rest of the movie is pretty serious anyway.
The killing of the the hobbit is completely unnessecary. The first time I saw it in the theatres I really didn't like that part.
It doesn't bother me that the letters take a while to appaer because it gives time for Frodo to say there is nothing there, and then to say there is something there which makes the whole scene more dramatic since Gandalf can show his reaction which I absolutley like. And I still see his fist reaction as relief.
I also like the part where the Shire is shown at sunrise and all is peaceful untill the black Rider steps into the frame. Its like, "oh look at the lovely shire,its so peaceful." (Black rider appears) Never mind" I like all the scenery shots but I think this movie is awesome at always using the scenery to the best advantage.
I was really glad they put the woodelves back in, if only for a cameo.
The time thing doesn't bother me since it would really undermine the point themovie is trying to establish. If the movie said 17 years later...Some people might be wondering why the ring is seen as such a powerful object. When the characters get panicked about it they might be thinking,"So? Nothing happened in 17 years" I guess the point I am trying to get at is that the need for quick action is lost.
I really like this sequence in general. It took me a few times of watching the movie before I figured out that Gollum shouted, "Mordor, Sauron!"

[The Saucepan Man]

Hmm, may be I am missing something, but there appears to be much wailing and gnashing of teeth here over what seem to me to be some fairly trivial issues.

Working from memory, none of the issues being discussed here gave me any cause for concern or confusion when I first watched FotR at the cinema. Admittedly, it was some time since I had last read the book at that point, but this sequence of scenes seemed to me to pass pretty much as I recalled from the book. I think that I did notice the attenuated timeline, but it didn't impinge at all upon my enjoyment of the film. Watching it, it all seemed pretty logical to me. I therefore find it difficult to see how any of these issues can comprise real criticisms of the film, in the sense of making it any less understandable or internally credible.

To be a bit more specific:

The timeline is not the same as that of the book. But it works for me. It flows pretty logically and, essentially in film terms, swiftly. I am with those who say that an apparent gap of more than a few months, let alone a few years, would have created unnecessary confusion and destroyed the tension that Jackson carefully builds up in these scenes. To my mind, the attenuated timeline enhances the film as a film.

The Rider beheading the Hobbit is not an issue for me, one way or the other. If anything, it demonstrates the Ringwraiths as a physical, rather than merely a psychological, threat, and is therefore likely to make the need to escape them more real in the minds of most audience members.

I believe Gandalf's visit to Minas Tirith's library to be important, since it enables the audience to understand how Gandalf comes to discover that this is indeed the One Ring. It explains why the appearance of the inscription on the Ring shows Gandalf and Frodo that this is the One Ring. The more observant members of the audience (and those who have read the book) will realise that this would have involved a round trip of some months and so assume that this is how long Gandalf took. The issue will be irrelevant to less observant audience members.

I suppose that it is slightly against Gandalf's character to jump out at Frodo from the darkness. I understand Mister Underhill's point about avoiding the temptation to use a great shot or moment if it undermines other parts of the film. However, given that it did not occur to me as being out of character when I watched the film, I don't see it as a big issue. I should imagine that most people are too busy enjoying the moment of shock that it creates to worry about whether it is the sort of thing that Gandalf would do. It could also be argued, I suppose, that it serves to illustrate Gandalf's worried state of mind, as a result of his discovery that this may be the One Ring. He is so preoccupied with it that he overlooks how his sudden appearance will startle Frodo. Nevertheless, of all the points raised here, this seems to me to be the most valid.

The delay in the words appearing on the Ring is just not an issue for me at all. It is not inconsistent with anything else in the film. When we see Isildur with the Ring, the inscription is already there because the Ring was already hot when he picked it up. When the Ring falls into Mount Doom, the inscription appears after a delay, so that is entirely consistent with what we see here. In these circumstances, I see no reason why Jackson should not play around a little with the audience's expectations and use the moment to show the states of mind of Gandalf and Frodo in their words and expressions.

One point that I think could possibly cause confusion is the fact that it remains unexplained how Gandalf uncovered Gollum's story. However, since this point did not occur to me when I first watched the film, I don't see it as a major issue. We can assume that there was good reason for Gandalf to have this knowledge, without actually knowing the reason.

Finally, I don't think that it will occur to many to wonder why Gandalf considers it more important to visit the head of his Order than to accompany Frodo and Sam. The reason for Gandalf's visit to Saruman is well explained and credible in the circumstances. After all, he does not know that the Ringwraiths are in the Shire. The more likely audience reaction is: "Oh no! Gandalf's going of to see his boss leaving Sam and Frodo alone to face those Black Riders, because he doesn't know that they are so close." Thus, the situation contributes to the rising tension.

OK, so this post may sound like I am Jackson's apologist. In some respects I suppose that I am, largely because of my admiration for his immense achievement. But that does not hold true for the entire film trilogy. There are many changes from book to film that I think are worth challenging because they do create internal inconsistencies or because I think that a different approach could have made the films better. But I see little point in criticising changes for the sake of it, particularly ones which are, on any analysis, minor and which, in my humble opinion, do little to impair the film and, indeed, in some cases actually enhance it.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

One of the displays I most enjoyed at the LotR Exhibition (which I saw in Houston this summer) was that of the various books, rolls, etc. from the Minas Tirith library. It was amazing to see the details of those documents - written in various scripts and handwritings, different languages, bound or rolled or flat. Some could be read, including Isildur's account, if I remember rightly. Even though the various papers and parchments appeared only briefly, they were made as if they had a genuine historical background. Wonderful!

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by SpM

Hmm, may be I am missing something, but there appears to be much wailing and gnashing of teeth here over what seem to me to be some fairly trivial issues.

Hey, is this not the Downs equivalent of pedants' corner? I thought some nitpicking (in a constructive, critical sense of course...) would be the order of the day, counteracting our gushing appreciations.

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

I think what Lal is saying (correct me if I'm wrong, Lal), is that the sequence is edited in such a way as to make you think a Nazgûl got to Bag End ahead of Gandalf --
"There's no Bagginses here. They're all up in Hobbiton... that way!"
Songs and beers and table-talk at the inn.
Frodo staggers home -- it's creepy in there -- OMG! Is that black-robed dude there waiting for him?
Ahh! Oh, no, it's just Gandalf. Don't jump out of the shadows like that Gandalf, you nearly gave me a heart attack.
Frodo digs out the Ring.
Gandalf throws it in the fire. It's the Ring. Hoo-boy, it's gonna be good when that black-cloacked dude gets there. Should be any second now...
Wait, they're having tea? What's with all this talking? C'mon, black-cloaked dude, use your spurs or something.
Oh -- there's the wraith, and now he's got a buddy. Sweet! Go ahead and pack, Frodo, you're toast.
Sam, you want some too? Okay, black-cloaked dude attack imminent...
It's morning? Did the black-cloaked dudes decide to stop at a motel and catch some shuteye, or...?

Yes, that's exactly it. It does give the impression that the Ringwraiths are slightly incompetent at hunting down the ring. They've been given Gollum's information which only seems to lack a postcode, and all they have to do is scare a few Hobbits who seem more than willing to give up Frodo's whereabouts. Couple this with the impression already put across that The Shire may well be little more than a village, it seems a bit surprising that the Ringwraiths are in reality quite a long way off Bag End.

I don't mind the tension of the 'Gandalf grab' moment quite so much, but it is the sense of the passage of time which is all wrong to me. Yes, Frodo does only have a narrow escape in the books, but he does know that he has to go for a long while in advance. one of the reasons he is so tardy is that he is 'still in love with the Shire', as Bilbo put it in a previous scene. So Film Frodo is forcibly ejected from his home while Book Frodo is left to his own devices and only just makes it.

Originally Posted by Esty

One of the displays I most enjoyed at the LotR Exhibition (which I saw in Houston this summer) was that of the various books, rolls, etc. from the Minas Tirith library. It was amazing to see the details of those documents - written in various scripts and handwritings, different languages, bound or rolled or flat. Some could be read, including Isildur's account, if I remember rightly. Even though the various papers and parchments appeared only briefly, they were made as if they had a genuine historical background. Wonderful!

That would have been a splendid job, to make props for the film! I would have been an expert in making old documents as I spent many an hour at primary school making 'authentic treasure maps' by taking my newly crayoned map, burning the edges and then soaking the lot in tea to stain it.

[Essex]

In amongst all this nitpicking, (well said Mr Saucepan!), I watched the scenes yet again tonight - I was drawn to the encompassing point (the reason maybe) for of all this tension that has been racked up - It's when Frodo says "what must I do" AND HE GRASPS THE RING. HE CLAIMS THE RING THERE AND THEN. This is what all the scenes have been building up to. Frodo claiming the Ring, and the start of the Quest. (I now realise why Jackson had movie Frodo keep the Ring in the Chest - he did not want him to claim it until this point)

You can see Gandalf's reaction after this - He is proud, and grateful that Frodo has finally realised the danger his land is under, and sees that Frodo has taken it on himself.

What must I do - One of the best lines in the movie (and it wasn't even a Tolkien line was it??!!! Sacre Bleu!)

Anyway, what a wonderful piece of work Jackson has done with these scenes to get us to this point.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by Lal

I spent many an hour at primary school making 'authentic treasure maps' by taking my newly crayoned map, burning the edges and then soaking the lot in tea to stain it.

I used the same procedure to gin up many a prop for D&D -- though as an American I of course used coffee instead of tea.

Originally Posted by SPM

there appears to be much wailing and gnashing of teeth here over what seem to me to be some fairly trivial issues

I wouldn't say wailing or gnashing. At most grumbling, muttering, and maybe a little hair-pulling. Let's be reasonable.

Originally Posted by Essex

and Frodo would become a more active character - Frodo becomes an active character, and indeed it is one of the defining bits in this movie - when he graps the ring as says 'What must I do.' - marvellous line and acting, showing he HAS become active and taken Action.

Hey, if it works for you, more power to you. I think overall Jackson/Woods's Frodo is far less active than book Frodo. Though my problems in these early sequences are relatively minor, I think we'll start to see this trend continue and grow fairly soon (Weathertop, anyone?).

P.S. -- I still say this doesn't have to turn into a shouting match between critics and Jackson defenders. Just because there are things I'd change or that don't work for me doesn't mean I don't respect his "immense achievement". We're just talking, just doing some armchair quarterbacking.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

I wouldn't say wailing or gnashing. At most grumbling, muttering, and maybe a little hair-pulling. Let's be reasonable.

Sorry, should have included a there ...

[alatar]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Hmm, may be I am missing something, but there appears to be much wailing and gnashing of teeth here over what seem to me to be some fairly trivial issues.

Surely we've not seen real "wailing and gnashing of teeth" yet, as I was withholding the real deal for the other movies in the trilogy, at which point my rabid frothing may require restraint in the form of multiple sedatives and rope.

An example of a trivial issue that may be important later is the 'Gandalf shoulder-grab cheap thrill.' Initially I wasn't sure why this bothered me, and as the movie moves on I hadn't had the time to think about it for long. However, here in the SbS, I was able to figure out why it bothered me, and deduced it to the 'out-of-characterness' of the Gandalf character as created by PJ. Again, admittedly, a few frames in the ocean, but what we see is that PJ is willing to sacrifice character consistency for a not-full-retail-price thrill.

This is what (to me) the SbS is all about: understanding PJ.

Or, in other words, getting inside his head without the messiness of a hatchet .

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Originally posted by Alatar

Surely we've not seen real "wailing and gnashing of teeth" yet, as I was withholding the real deal for the other movies in the trilogy, at which point my rabid frothing may require restraint in the form of multiple sedatives and rope.

--------------------
I quite agree. In my view, FOTR is by far the best of the three movies.
I've watched part or all of it more then once, and saw it many times
in the theater, but I couldn't watch TTT and ROTK in movie theaters more
then once or twice. Although the second and third certainly have their
moments, there are also some marked errors in moviemaking (but that's
a ways off).

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by alatar

Wood elves?!? Are we to assume that Frodo knows the difference between Wood elves and Stone elves (and their assorted cousins) by the sound made by their passing? But we get more information about the elves regardless, and Sam's line is fitting, as the world is a sadder place now that the elves have left. By the way, in these processions/caravans, who decides who gets to ride the horses? Is it always a person of higher station, someone frail, the owner of the horse, what? And what happens to the horses when they reach the Grey Havens? Just something that I've always wondered.

Any other thoughts on the Wood Elves in this sequence? I must admit that I've always been far more a fan of hobbits than of Elves, all remote and world-weary and perfect. They're definitely a challenge to portray, and I have pretty mixed feelings about Jackson's take on them.

The soft-focus glowiness sorta throws me, but I think it's the music that really doesn't work for me in this bit. As a piece of soundtrack, it's very nice, even gives me chills as I watch this scene. But at the same time it seems too stylized. I mean, we're supposed to get that the song we hear on the soundtrack -- with all its perfect studio harmonizations -- is being sung by the Elves as they march to the Havens, right? Technically I don't see any violation of Tolkien here, but I can't say I buy these Elves. Again, it's a very small detail, but I think I would have preferred the Elf-song to sound more like it was being sung by real creatures walking through a forest.

We'll have more, and perhaps better, opportunities to discuss Jackson's take on Elvishness later, but I'm still curious about others' reactions.

It's also interesting to note this scene's dislocation from its function in the book: the approach of the Elves at a fortuitous moment causes the Black Rider to withdraw. Maybe it's better to save more in-depth discussion of the plot effects for the upcoming encounter with the Nazgûl, but I think it's worth observing that Tolkien uses the scene with the Wood Elves to serve an important story function, whereas Jackson's seemingly minor rearrangement of events causes the scene to lose its purpose, resulting in its rightful excision from the theatrical cut.

[alatar]

I liked how the elves were displayed, with the glowiness and all, yet was just puzzled by the inclusion of the word wood. Why was it added? And if I remember correctly, I don't think that any 'type' of elf is noted later.

[Holbytlass]

I'm going to backtrack for a moment. First off, I want everyone to know where I'm coming from in relation when the movies came out. The movies brought me to the books. I read LOTR 4 months before the FOTR came out and had only gotten to read it a few times. So I was in the "early stages" of a great love affair, when things are fresh and new and every discovery is cosmic. All my senses were hypersensitive when I sat down in that theater.

Second backtrack, when Bilbo finally lets go of the ring and it lands hard (on the floor and in my gut), that was my "oh, $%#@&*!!" moment. That's when I realized this was serious.

Interestingly enough, it bounced away from Gollum because it abandoned him but stayed when Bilbo released it. I suppose this would be a "ring POV", it must have known the riders where coming to find itself and wanted to stay with someone not powerful, and/or it didn't want to be "claimed" by Gandalf since he was there. Maybe that's why there was this extra show of power when Gandalf tried to pick it up (BTW, scared the shoes off me).

Originally Posted by Essex

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.

This actually makes sense to my question of why would Gandalf say the ring "is quite cool" and dumps it into Frodo's hand before fully knowing it's the one ring. Had it been a regular ring it would've burned.

Originally Posted by Alatar

Somewhere the "Rosie knows an idiot when she sees one" line was touted to be just wonderful, but to me it's a joke that isn't really funny.

I don't find those lines funny, but that part does make Sam endearing to me. He knows he isn't the smartest hobbit around, but he is wise enough to know his limits but never use his limits as an excuse not to do things, or shirk in anyway.


The wood elf scene, I could do without. Later it is explained how and why the elves are leaving Middle-earth. Other than to see two doe-eyed handsome men, it could have been cut.

All in all, loved the landscape, interactions between Gandalf-Frodo-Sam very good. Loved how scary Rider was talking, not real important about the head-chop. Fine with the pace of the movie.

[Essex]

Originally Posted by Tuor of Gondolin

In my view, FOTR is by far the best of the three movies.
I've watched part or all of it more then once, and saw it many times
in the theater, but I couldn't watch TTT and ROTK in movie theaters more
then once or twice. Although the second and third certainly have their
moments, there are also some marked errors in moviemaking (but that's
a ways off).

Off the top of my head I reckon that most people think FOTR is the 'best' movie of the three, and that it is the most 'faithful' to the books

I put it to you that FOTR is the LEAST faithful to the books inasmuch as it has the most changes to any of the three films. (maybe not the BIGGEST changes, but the MOST changes..)

I suppose this is another thread in itself...............

PS and of course, in my humble opinion, rotk is by far the best film (and book) of the trilogy......

[alatar]

Tuor of Gondolin and Essex,

We probably should start a poll regarding the 'best' movie of the trilogy, if one doesn't exist already, as such global declarations are not really part of the SbS - not that I don't want to add my opinion . We might state our feelings regarding the particular sequence, but as I think that we all realized before the start of the SbS, simply stating how one feels is more interesting when it is accompanied with why.

As an example, I might assume that Essex prefers RotK over FotR and TTT as RotK has less changes or RotK is more faithful to the source - though really I cannot be sure (again that's not the discussion) and don't want to guess. But at least there's an indication of why. Seeing something in one of the sequences that really makes (or breaks) the film for you would also be interesting to read - the more specific the better. I'd wager that some of you know what breaks RotK for me...Hopefully when I've stated my likes and dislikes in the opening post I've also supplied clear reasons why.

If not, be sure to let me know.

Cheer. - alatar