LotR1-FotR-Seq01

[Boromir88]

Believe it or not I'm quite pleased with the way Jackson handled the introduction. Though as far as being historically (ahem-Tolkienical) accurate, it's really quite far off, Jackson does the introduction well. As you said, the whole point of the intro is to...

He had 7.5 minutes with which to work, to set up the world of Middle Earth, to establish the characters/players and to get us all fearing the One Ring.

So, the minor details in the intro (like where the battle was at, when it was at, how it happened) aren't totally necessary in the movie. The point is to get everyone (bookfans and non-readers) into the world of middle-earth, and I think in the overall picture of the intro he does this.

As you have said he establishes the three main races at the time, and sets them all in a different light.

I don't think many more characters need to be established besides Elrond, Gil-galad, Isildur, and Elendil. Other than that, I don't see the need to establish someone like Cirdan.

Despite the change in what happens at Mount Doom (putting Elrond in there with Isildur), I think it goes to show a lot. It parallels Elves and Men by using Isildur and Elrond. With Isildur's "No" it shows that men can be more prone to the Ring, and the Elves are goody-goodies (Do what's right!) type of people.

This is an effective "addition" by Jackson. I can't say change, because we really don't know what happened at Mount Doom (are we even sure Isildur got there??) But it establishes the power and fear of the Ring, and that such a thing that was so close to destruction and it's end, escapes.

One extra thing I'd like to point out, in that (this might be suited better for later, but I'll probably say it again when the time comes). But here's a photo of how Isildur looks when deciding to destroy the Ring or not, and how Frodo looks. It's scaringly similar, and a great job by Jackson and his team to draw such a similarity...



Just looking at the smile is rather weary. It's that look of "It's mine to have, and mine forever." But more important the smile is each directed at someone. Isildur's smile towards Elrond, and Frodo's menacing smile towards Sam. So it's more like..."The ring's mine and you can't do nothing about it!"

Mor will probably come later when I actually get home and watch this sequence.

[Holbytlass]

Overall, I do like the prologue. It was cohesive in having to introduce and explain in a relatively short amount. Even my family members who haven't read the books caught on easily enough, at least good guys, bad guys, evil ring etc.

A couple of things:

1. The scene showing the three elves having their rings with Galadriel in the forefront and Cirdan and Elrond blurred out, I wonder why Elrond (Hugo Weaving) wasn't used. The men were already blurred, so what was the big deal in Elrond not being there?(BTW, Alatar, I'm lost on the signifigance of one of the men having only one eye. Maybe a foreshadowing of Sauron's one eye?)

2.The first shot of seeing Sauron after he successfully forged the one ring and is holding it up, his armour makes him look like he's got a big ol' fat beer belly. Sure there are and have been heavy set evil rulers of the world, but it doesn't seem to work for Sauron.

3.I just love the sound of the line "But they were all of them deceived". I even used it in my werewolf game.

4.As far as the implode/explode of Sauron after having his fingers and ring removed (yes, it should have been only the ring finger), it kind of shows really how greedy for absolute power he was to the detrimant of himself. Sauron had tunnel-vision and didn't stop to think 'maybe I'm putting too much of myself into this object, man that would suck if I lost it'.

5.I think the biggest disservice of the prologue is that Bilbo really did come off looking like a thief. He finds a ring and someone is yelling 'lost, lost, my precious is lost'. So what does Bilbo do? Hurries and puts it in his pocket with a look of 'I hope I don't get caught'.

[Anguirel]

I generally agree with Boromir on this one. The introduction looks, sounds, and feels fabulous, and to ask questions like "where did Sauron come from?" or "surely the Elves would have different swords from each other?" seems somewhat over-pedantic.

I don't mind Galadriel's poaching of Treebeard's lines at all. They are a dramatic opening, Galadriel is far more interesting (and better portayed in the films) than Treebeard, and the refernce to "feeling it in the water" works perfectly with the Mirror, and perhaps Nenya, both of which we will discover later. Filmically speaking, it's better to set up a major character throughout all the films and especially the first than a fairly major character in the second film.

Besides, both Galadriel-the survivor of the House of Finwe-and Ms Blanchett are made for the narrator's role. Personally I was hoping for an ending with her voiceover, finishing with Legolas and Gimli taking ship...

The introduction of the races seems a bit token, with the Men and Dwarves identical to each other, but given its symbolic nature I don't mind it. I liked our glimpse of Gil-galad and Cirdan here.

The Last Alliance-I'm intrigued alatar got an impression of greenness; I overwhelmingly recall gold and blue. These are wonderful scenes. I love the line "But there were some who resisted" and the music and marching Elendil which accompany it. It really captures the spirit of the Free Peoples in LOTR.

The only disadvantage is the murder of Gil-galad on the cutting-room floor. His appearance wielding Aiglos is very tricky to catch. Why not have shown more shots of him in the fighting? It needn't have cut Elrond's appearances if they'd fought side by side. I don't especially mind the absence of Cirdan though.

I think Sauron is tremendous, if perhaps not as I'd quite imagine him; a bit too in-your-face and Gothmogish. Nevertheless, his sweeping away of the Elven and Human lines is amazing. Once again, Gil-galad's contribution to killing him is elided, sadly. Isildur deserves a little less credit than he gets.

Unlike alatar, though, I felt sympathy for him during the Gladden Fields EE scene-an extremely wise addition. The EE of FOTR is less radically different from the other EEs, but still debatably the best them; a very intelligent director's cut.

"The creature Gollum" seems a fair enough description, and yes, the Ring's hopping sets a nice, sinister tone...

[Essex]

Quick post to start with, as I'm off to see Fish tonight in Norwich (ex Marillion front man - who, yes, were once called Silmarillion but had to drop the Sil for trademark purposes!)

Anyway, it's all about the Ring. I never noticed this until I listened to the director's commentary, and I think Fran Walsh states this. It's amazing to listen to their discussion on how the prologue came about - who to actually narrate it (Gandalf/ frodo/ or galadriel) - how long it should be (new line wanted 2 mins max!) - and the viewpoint itself - I think it works superbly having the Ring as the main viewpoint.

Look at the extra dvds you get with the EE - another version of the Prologue is in there (in storybook form) with frodo narrating the history of middle-earth rather than the Ring. - this would not have had the same impact as the Prologue as it stands.

couple of things -

jackson has never mentioned it, but he stole the shot of the ring bouncing
on the rocks from Ralph Baski's version of the Prologue! There are other places whre jackson has 'borrowed' from baski, and I'll explain these as we come to them

it looks like to me that cate blanchet DID actually narrate a closure to lotr trilogy that anguirel (and myself) wanted - listen to fran walsh's commentary at the start of the next scene (as the commentary usually follows over to the next scene by a few seconds!) - she says cate blanchett would bookend the movies - and there's a clue in the ROTK ee inasmuch as jackson states they did film some scenes of the fellowship after the events of LOTR.

more later!

[Boromir88]

As far as the implode/explode of Sauron after having his fingers and ring removed (yes, it should have been only the ring finger), it kind of shows really how greedy for absolute power he was to the detrimant of himself.~Holby

I have to disagree (though it's not a bad thing), but I think this is pretty clearly shown without having Isildur crawl up and cut off one of Sauron's finger. That is, I think it's shown fairly well (and more later on), how greedy Isildur was when it came to wanting the Ring. (Isildur's scroll, Elrond's account...etc).

"But there were some who resisted" and the music and marching Elendil which accompany it. It really captures the spirit of the Free Peoples in LOTR.~Anguirel

I too love that line.

(And I just realized upon watching it, we don't see Isildur at Mount Doom with Elrond until much later. I forgot that this part wasn't until later, sorry about that alatar).

[Lalwendë]

Argh, it's hard not to pick out those book-to-film differences, but I have decided I shall resist!

Anyway, this has finally made me look at some of the commentary tracks, which i have never bothered with until this point as I tend to find them very tiresome after a few minutes. I do like to simply enjoy a film without having someone telling me all about it; it's like going to the cinema and having some idiot talk his wife all the way through the film...

Did anyone else notice how some of the Orcs would later be seen on the Pelennor Fields? I liked this. Some might accuse PJ of being a cheapskate and recycling his footage, but no, in this context it works. Orcs, like Elves, have endless lives, maybe they even have their own 'Halls of mandos' and keep on coming back after death, so to have them reappear (or make their first appearance?) does in fact work.

I did like the way that light was used. The Ring glowing on Sauron's finger was interesting; I wonder if they intended that this might demonstrate how it was his Ring alone? How it could only truly be used properly by its maker? It was as though they wanted to show how the Ring's power tapped into either Light or some Dark version of it. Of course then Sauron's bodily destruction is represented by a blast wave of light.

Incidentally, in this blast wave, if you watch on freeze-frame you can see that nobody is actually felled by it. Other freeze-frame oddities I noticed included an elf with an uncanny resemblance to Legolas with brown hair, and Alan Lee as one of the Kings. And as for the other two Elven ring-bearers, they are Gil-galad and Cirdan (with grey hair, too).

I realised how much I like the design of the films while watching this Prologue again. Listening to what the people from the design team say on the commentaries it is clear that they are real fans of the books, as they attempted to make use of Tolkien's own designs as much as possible, even if those props were hardly seen. I think this is the area where the real Tolkien nerds were let loose, and it shows. Happily.

[Mister Underhill]

I have to agree that overall, the Prologue sequence does do a good job of establishing Middle-earth, the Ring, and the history of the Ring. I notice that fire is quickly established as a visual theme linked with Sauron and the Ring, foreshadowing the fiery climax of the trilogy.

It's hard to fault Jackson & Co. much here in terms of sheer transmission of information. There's a lot of exposition compressed into these few minutes; it's clear, easily understandable even to the uninitiated, and not boring. Still, there are seeds here of future discontent:

An overall very stylized presentation. I didn't much care for the shots of the various races and their rings. In the very moments that we're establishing Middle-earth, its credibility, and its rules, those shots signal, "It's just a story." On the other hand, I can appreciate the need for brevity.

The "mass-produced" Elven arms and armor, and their coordinated drill-team chop (as noted by alatar) also detract from the film's "realism", though I hasten to add that overall I think the design of the films -- props, costumes, sets, VFX, etc -- are one of their strongest and most successful aspects, as Lal mentioned.

I wonder if the narrative could have gotten away without this prologue, or at least with shifting some of the history to the Council scene.

Galadriel is something of an odd choice for our narrator, at least from the point of view of the books. She represents more or less pure Elvishness in Middle-earth, and in many ways is outside of and disconnected from its human concerns.

Bilbo is not an unikely candidate, but the film plays him as especially eccentric and comical -- I suppose he isn't right for the high historical tone of the prologue.

Frodo, as author of the Red Book, at first glance seems an attractive possibility -- but to have him here as the one who explains the Ring and Middle-earth, then a few scenes later have him be the one who is explained to -- well, it just doesn't work.

Sam is a very strong candidate. His earthiness often puts him into the position of being able to comment on events as if it were all a story that he was watching and only sort of coincidentally also involved in. Of course, there's the same tension you have with Frodo -- at the start of the films, Sam knows nothing, has never even been outside of the Shire. But I wonder what a prologue delivered by a much older and wiser Sam -- maybe we don't even recoginize his voice at first -- would be like.

I wonder that they didn't use Elrond as the narrator, since he has the advantage of having been a participant in the Ring's history and is also a pivotal character in the films' tension between Men and Elves. But perhaps having him narrate and also appear in the early scenes is too much Elrond -- it establishes him as a central character when he's really only a supporting player.

Of course there was also the option of an anonymous narrator, some unknown person relating a tale of events long past.

In the event, I agree that Blanchett did a good job in a less than ideal situation, and I really like Treebeard's lines opening the trilogy. As a rule, the filmmakers never misstep by using direct Tolkien quotations -- the contrast between Tolkien-crafted lines and those crafted by the filmmakers often highlights how much Tolkien's prose style contributes to the feeling -- the magic, if you will -- of Middle-earth.

Other things I love:

The sound design is great. Shore's score works well in establishing a mystical, mythical atmosphere, and the effects go a long way towards establishing an involving and credible Middle-earth: the hissing, almost electrical crackling sound when Isildur raises Sauron's severed finger with the Ring still on it, and the low, moaning, vvvwwoooommmm of Sauron's shock-wave are two notable examples.

The shots of the Misty Mountains are great. Jackson's use of real landscapes in the movie starts here, and strongly contributes to evoking Middle-earth.

I love the shot of Sauron's smoking helm.

One miscue that always throws me a bit: the shot of Isildur right before he puts on the Ring and disappears during the ambush. The visual effects of the films are almost without exception of an extremely high quality, but something about this shot, the lighting being off, something, makes you feel you're seeing an actor in front of a green-screen who was matted in.

Overall, I agree that the Prologue is effective and well done, but it's interesting how it contains, in microcosm, the foreshadowings of many of the things I dislike about the films.

[Kath]

I thought the prologue was done wonderfully. As has been said the filmmakers needed to capture their audience in the story as quickly as possible, and yet cater for so many different people. I think this was achieved. The narration over the actions on the screen gave enough of the history so that those who had not read Tolkien could understand without getting too bogged down in details, but it had enough to satisfy the Tolkien fanatic that these people knew what they were talking about.

As to who should have narrated it:

Galadriel is something of an odd choice for our narrator, at least from the point of view of the books. She represents more or less pure Elvishness in Middle-earth, and in many ways is outside of and disconnected from its human concerns.

I agree that she is somewhat disconnected, but in a way that makes her a good candidate. It could be considered that she is then telling the history in an unbiased way, from all points of view. Her way of narrating, softly but with feeling behind the words worked for me and I think the ethereal quality that comes from Cate Blanchett, even when you don't see her, reinforced the idea that this was a long time ago, and that she (Galadriel) had lived through all the time in between.

The actual imagery on the screen was amazing as well. I went with my mum the first time I saw it and I had to drag her to the cinema (I only took her so she'd pay) because she isn't a fan and she thought she wouldn't enjoy it. 7.5 minutes in and she was hooked. To me the prologue is one of the best bits in the film because it manages to incorporate the essence of the books and what the next 3 hours will hold without really detracting too much from what Tolkien actually wrote. It also shows the beautiful scenery that we come to know and love, something that really made the films what they are. The prologue could almost have been a film on it's own if they'd just added the ending on!

I can see problems in it, especially the one that Mr Underhill mentioned, with Isildur putting on the Ring. It did seem slightly out of place, or out of sync somehow, as though the editors hadn't put it in quite the right place. But they did get all the story in and as a beginning to a film, or as in this case three films, it was excellent.

[Lathriel]

One of the things I really like is that they begin the movie quietly and that they don't have all the promotional jingles at the beginning of New Line Cinema etc. So I sometimes get goosebumps when Galadriel begins to speak and the fate theme comes with the title.
I general the script is nice and almost poetic. Myth became Legend... (sorry if I switched myth and legend)
I do like the way the rings are shown. By the way the elves, dwarves, and men take it you can guess at their nature. You can see that the elves are cautious because they study the rings. The dwarves seem happier about it and they don't think of the possibility that the rings could be evil. The men are greedy because they close their hands over their ringds so no-one else can take them away.
I really like most of the shots. For example, those of the Misty mountains, the moon, the circle in the water, the ring bouncing down, of course the shot of the elves as they bring down their swords.
I get an immediate feeling that I am entering another world. However, the first time I saw the movie I had to adjust myself to the way PJ saw the Orcs and Sauron. I myself had never actually imagined Sauron in a physical form, somehow my mind had skipped over that when I read the book. And the orcs were scarier than my imagined ones but with time I came to accept them,somewhat.

[radagastly]

I thought the opening black screen, with the voice-over was a very effective way to set a mood of mystery, especially with Cate doing the voice. Not that Galadriel was necessarily the best narrator for the prologue or the worst, since there were many options, but Cate does the reading exactly right, I think, and we don't know her as a character yet, so it doesn't impact our understanding of what's going on. It could be any voice, even the Ring's voice.

Everything in this prologue seems to be muted in color except the fire. Sort of smokey charcoal-grey or fire-yellow, nothing else. Even the eyes of the orcs glow with the same yellow color as the inscription on Sauron's ring. The elves in the battle wear gold armor, to be sure, but it is muted with a sort of dull green cast. It's very moody and hazy, like an ancient memory. It really enhances the sense of that this is history.

One of the things that I like to do when I first watch a movie is look at the horizon in the long shots, especially at the beginning of the film. Horizons mark the shape of the world, and tell you where you're at. This opening sequence doesn't seem to distinguish its horizons. The closer shots are either interior, or they are shrouded in mist such that the distant edge of the world is invisible. Even the battle scene at Mount Doom is surrounded by so much smoke that you can't tell where the land ends and the sky begins. This enhances the other-worldly mood of these scenes by displacing us. We are floating and rather unstuck like in a dream or a memory.

And just what was Isildur thinking anyway? Most people, especially when in water, sink. Most of these same people, laden with chain-mail armor, sink like rocks in water. Actually more like heavy large aerodynamic rocks with lead centers. So not so sure what he planned to do when Isildur started into the water. Luckily he gets a few wooden 'arrows of buoyancy' in his back as these offset the weight of his body and armor so that he can float away.

I must admit, this bothered me, too. One of the first things I thought of was Spanish Conquistadors trying to swim to their ships fully armored and with pockets full of gold, drowning on the way because the weight was too much.

The synchronized sword swinging thing that the elves do looks really cool, and I assume that it was added to show the precision and coordination of the Elves, in contrast to the chaos of the orcs, who seem to attack in a free-for-all swarm. If you really think about it, though, the orcs have to hit the line in sync with the elves' sword wave for the wave to serve any purpose. If an elf swings his/her sword too soon, it's ineffective (but looks really nice! just like a marching band...); too late, and the orc has already bopped him/her on the head.

I took another look at this, just to see if the orcs really were chaotic. Their front line is in a wedge formation, albeit rounded a bit, a legitimate method of attack, and the synchronised sword swing starts in the middle, where the orcs collide first. It then moves out in both directions. We just see it from one end, a visually exciting POV.

The only disadvantage is the murder of Gil-galad on the cutting-room floor. His appearance wielding Aiglos is very tricky to catch. Why not have shown more shots of him in the fighting? It needn't have cut Elrond's appearances if they'd fought side by side.

As much as I like him as a character, Gil-Galad isn't as important to the story of Lord of the Rings as Elrond is. I believe he was sacrificed for the sake of clarity. If you feature him now, he ought to turn up later, and that could eat up time without advancing the plot. Better to leave him obscure and shift the focus onto an elf who does turn up later anyway.

Argh, it's hard not to pick out those book-to-film differences, but I have decided I shall resist!

I know what you mean. I first read these books when P.J. was in diapers, but I'm determined to put that aside as a means of comparison. I'll use if to clarify what I'm trying to say if need be, but I'm going to make every effort to stay within the context of the film throughout this discussion. Wish me luck!