How much Frodo grew... - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Morsul the Dark · 07-31-2004, 09:47 PM

Yes a movie is better than no movie... but it create an overly annoying amount of questions from the audience that had not read the books about why sam didn't kill gollum right there and another less annoying butstill annoying answer of "SHHHH!!!!!!!!!" from those that had 9with a few scattered people actually answering the question)

Encaitare · 08-01-2004, 09:05 PM

Heh heh, indeed you are right, Morsul. Why can't people just watch a forking movie? What's with all the questions? ::rips hair out::

Essex · 08-02-2004, 09:47 AM

ok, we're going off topic, but here's my two peneth worth re frodo/sam.

It all boils down to the effect PJ wanted when Frodo has been captured by Shelob. In the book, the reason why Sam doesn't get to frodo in time is because he was busy dealing with gollum.

Now, cinematically wise, how do we show a fast moving action sequence with sam and gollum, and a slow moving, stealthy capture of frodo by shelob at the same time? I don't think you can.

So, to get around this, PJ had frodo fight gollum (instead of sam fighting him), then realising his mistake re sam too late, and THEN being hunted down, slowly (and to me this is the most scariest bit in the movie) and then bitten before being bound in her web.

But to have this, we can't have Sam in the equation. Therefore, jackson gets Frodo to send Sam away. Now please note here, Sam is only going down a few steps whilst he is in shock and sadness at being sent away. He falls most of the way. He then sees the lembas, which to me does not change his mind, just makes him more angry.

And to add to this, we have a great shot where Sam turns up, with Frodo's sword which he left in the webs, to save the day (kind of!)......

I'd lay a pound to a penny this will be like the reason pj gives us in the commentary for changing these scenes. we'll find out in decemeber......

Eomer of the Rohirrim · 08-02-2004, 01:45 PM

True, but those changes make gains while, at the same, they cause more problems.

Essex · 08-03-2004, 04:39 AM

oh yes, they cause a lot of problems, but that doesn't seem to put jackson off throughout these films, does it! I'm just trying to look at it from a filmaker's perspective.

ps I think it is Phillipa Boyens who is the main driving force behind the scripts. In the interviews, especially on the tt ee, she is the one who comes across most strongly when talking about the changes to the books.

PS , I finally heard the commentary from jackson around why they had frodo showing the nazgul the ring. They said they took it from another scene later on in the book (you know, where frodo is tempted to get out the ring when he sees / hears the witch king outside minas morgul). This actually makes me feel a bit better, as I hadn't twigged it, and it now works better for me. Jackson also subtly seems to jokingly/sarcastically make a note that putting in this scene here didn't create any problems for the viewing public!!!!

Lathriel · 08-15-2004, 02:03 PM

What I like about the EE is that it is explained in the documentaries why they changed parts of the book in the movie.
It helps me see the problems PJ had to deal with plus through the documentaries I began to gain respect for what they did. Even if the movies aren't true to the book word for word the director and writers at least have an explanation for it.

07-31-2004, 09:47 PM	#1
Morsul the Dark Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 3,448	Yes a movie is better than no movie... but it create an overly annoying amount of questions from the audience that had not read the books about why sam didn't kill gollum right there and another less annoying butstill annoying answer of "SHHHH!!!!!!!!!" from those that had 9with a few scattered people actually answering the question) __________________ Morsul the Resurrected

08-02-2004, 01:45 PM	#4
Eomer of the Rohirrim Auspicious Wraith Join Date: May 2002 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 4,859	True, but those changes make gains while, at the same, they cause more problems. __________________ Los Ingobernables de Harlond

08-15-2004, 02:03 PM	#6
Lathriel Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Wandering through Middle-Earth (Sadly in Alberta and not ME) Posts: 612	What I like about the EE is that it is explained in the documentaries why they changed parts of the book in the movie. It helps me see the problems PJ had to deal with plus through the documentaries I began to gain respect for what they did. Even if the movies aren't true to the book word for word the director and writers at least have an explanation for it. __________________ Back again

08-01-2004, 09:05 PM	#2
Encaitare Bittersweet Symphony Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: On the jolly starship Enterprise Posts: 1,814	Heh heh, indeed you are right, Morsul. Why can't people just watch a forking movie? What's with all the questions? ::rips hair out::

08-02-2004, 09:47 AM	#3
Essex Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Essex, England Posts: 886	ok, we're going off topic, but here's my two peneth worth re frodo/sam. It all boils down to the effect PJ wanted when Frodo has been captured by Shelob. In the book, the reason why Sam doesn't get to frodo in time is because he was busy dealing with gollum. Now, cinematically wise, how do we show a fast moving action sequence with sam and gollum, and a slow moving, stealthy capture of frodo by shelob at the same time? I don't think you can. So, to get around this, PJ had frodo fight gollum (instead of sam fighting him), then realising his mistake re sam too late, and THEN being hunted down, slowly (and to me this is the most scariest bit in the movie) and then bitten before being bound in her web. But to have this, we can't have Sam in the equation. Therefore, jackson gets Frodo to send Sam away. Now please note here, Sam is only going down a few steps whilst he is in shock and sadness at being sent away. He falls most of the way. He then sees the lembas, which to me does not change his mind, just makes him more angry. And to add to this, we have a great shot where Sam turns up, with Frodo's sword which he left in the webs, to save the day (kind of!)...... I'd lay a pound to a penny this will be like the reason pj gives us in the commentary for changing these scenes. we'll find out in decemeber......

08-03-2004, 04:39 AM	#5
Essex Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Essex, England Posts: 886	oh yes, they cause a lot of problems, but that doesn't seem to put jackson off throughout these films, does it! I'm just trying to look at it from a filmaker's perspective. ps I think it is Phillipa Boyens who is the main driving force behind the scripts. In the interviews, especially on the tt ee, she is the one who comes across most strongly when talking about the changes to the books. PS , I finally heard the commentary from jackson around why they had frodo showing the nazgul the ring. They said they took it from another scene later on in the book (you know, where frodo is tempted to get out the ring when he sees / hears the witch king outside minas morgul). This actually makes me feel a bit better, as I hadn't twigged it, and it now works better for me. Jackson also subtly seems to jokingly/sarcastically make a note that putting in this scene here didn't create any problems for the viewing public!!!!