LotR1-FotR-Seq01

[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!

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I too love the Cate Blanchett voiceover at the beginning - her voice has a wonderfully mysterious quality, and I agree with radagastly - first time viewers don't know who is speaking, so there's not yet a connection with Galadriel. Besides, the beginning is the mythological background, and Tolkien's Legendarium was written from the Elves' point of view. For that reason alone no other race could have taken over that part.

For the same reason, (the beginning being mythological) I actually like the stylized images at the beginning. Unlike Underhill, I don't expect a realistic approach to this part of the story. It's like a painting of an historical event - we know very well that it didn't look exactly like that on the actual scene, but the artistic point of view shows symbolic details that give those who view it later information and "truth" despite the lack of realism. I guess I would apply that to the Elven sword-fighting - who cares about realism when it looks so cool?!

I think the color theme chosen for the two forces is very good - gold as a symbol of light for the Elves and allies, black/grey for the orcs and cohorts, to show darkness. Interesting detail - we see Elendil's helmet only very briefly, but it is the one Aragorn wears at his crowning later. The one thing that grated with me in the battle was the fact that Elrond wears no helmet. I know his face has to be shown so that people recall it when he appears later, but having him bare-headed in the middle of helmeted soldiers seems silly.

I too like the sound effect of the falling ring in the cave - it sounds very heavy, not at all what one would expect of so little an object. That of course shows how "weighty" it is in the context of the story.

We have one visual element that is used occasionally in all three films - the map. It gives a brief sense of orientation and makes the fantasy world feel more real. Having it underlying the pictures of Sauron's destruction of Middle-earth (those look like they come from the Rohan scenes in TTT) gives that scene a sense of broadness in scope. Also, a map is used for the transition to the next scene, Bag End in the Shire. Whoever did the map drawing did an excellent job of recapturing the Tolkienish look; they were very close to the original book maps.

[Reg Pither]

I like the Prologue a lot, but.... I don't think there should have been one!

I don't think there is any need at all to 'hold the hand' of newcomers to the world of Middle Earth. Everything explained at the beginning of the film should have been left for Gandalf to tell Frodo or until the Council of Elrond. That way, some of the information about different races and the history would have already been drip-fed to the audience, rather than the massive amount of exposition that has to absorbed by the viewer in the first few minutes of the film. I think that it is all too much.

But the main reason that I think the prologue was a poor decision is that it immediately removes one of the most potent pieces of storytelling in FotR - the discovery that Bilbo's old ring is The One Ring. As it is, we know its true identity right from the start of the film (even if Frodo doesn't) and this takes a big chunk of the mystery and wonder out of the story. Then, at that point, Gandalf could have told Frodo about some of the history behind it. A real missed opportunity IMHO.

I know I seem to be alone on this one, but when I go to see a movie, or read a book, or watch a TV programme, I want to be surprised, intrigued and have my curiosity piqued, not have everything laid out on a plate for me. A sense of mystery, of unanswered questions coupled with the dramatic impact of them being resolved. That's why I feel that the Prologue - great piece of cinema though it is - was in the wrong place.

[Essex]

well done to those above who have stopped themselves delving too deeply into the differences between book and film. But hang on, if you're already thinking about doing that her, at the Prologue which was pretty faifthful to the books, then what chance have we that we won't have a bun fight in pretty much EVERY other scene in the film?

and here I go starting one off now.....

In the books, we have the siege of Barad-Dur and the fight at Dagorlad. We don't see this. This is an omission not a change.

Now, as Gandalf states to Frodo:

It was Gil-galad, Elven-king and Elendil of Westernesse who overthrew Sauron, though they themselves perished in the deed; and Isildur Elendil's son cut the Ring from Sauron's hand and took it for his own.

Gil-gald and Elendil 'defeat' Sauron but are slain. In the histories of any nation, a commander who's Battle was won is seen to be victorious, even if they die. So, in this way we can say that movie wise Elendil and Gil-Galad DID defeat Sauron and his forces as the battle was won.

As Elrond states at the Council

I was the herald of Gil-galad and marched with his host. I was at the Battle of Dagorlad before the Black Gate of Mordor, where we had the mastery: for the Spear of Gil-galad and the Sword of Elendil, Aiglos and Narsil, none could withstand. I beheld the last combat on the slopes of Orodruin, where Gil-galad died, and Elendil fell, and Narsil broke beneath him; but Sauron himself was overthrown, and Isildur cut the Ring from his hand with the hilt-shard of his father's sword, and took it for his own

So Jackson is faithful in having the last Battle on the slopes of Mount Doom. Yes, Narsil brakes beneath Elendil as he fell, that is different. And movie Isildur cuts the Ring with the hilt shard as mentioned by Elrond above. OK, so how this comes about IS different movie wise to how it's described by Elrond, I'll warrant that - but filmically, isn't this a great idea from Jackson and co? Just showing Isildur cutting the Ring from a lifeless Sauron would not look good! and also, he kills two birds with one stone in having Sauron break Narsil and still (technically) have isildur cut the Ring off of Sauron's hand. We had to have a few fingers come off of Sauron's hand because of this shot - It would be pretty much impossible for his one Ring finger to be cut off this way.


to finish, for now, re Isildur wearing armour when swimming. Here Jackson is being totally faithful to the books, but still we have issues.

He leaped into the waters, but the Ring slipped from his finger as he swam, and then the Orcs saw him and killed him with arrows.

Does Tolkien say he removed his armour? No. Does he say he leaped into the water? Yes Does Jackson follow this to the letter? Yes.

[alatar]

Thanks to all of you who are participating. Now with that out of the way...

Hope that it came across that I did like the prologue. Surely it was changed from the books, and there was some silliness, but it worked. PJ states in the commentaries that he wanted a 'James Bond-like' opening, and I think that he made the right choice. You are grabbed from your seat and dragged into Middle Earth. Gandalf and Frodo could have talked about the defeat of Sauron over cupcakes and tea in the comfort of Bag End, but to see it (and to get it out of the way) to me was the better way to go. One thing that I've learned through examining the films is that there's always a clock running, and you need to 'get it done' within a specified amount of time. Also, there's pacing - too slow, and your audience (in the theater) starts finding that their seats aren't really that comfortable; too fast, and you lose most viewers (as an example of the later, see the theatrical release of "Dune" by David Lynch circa 1984 where a six-hour movie was hacked down to two. Huh?).

Still think that Cate Blanchett's voice was the best choice, irregardless of her role in the film. A man's voice, presumably deeper, may have sounded more evil or (worse) more earthy. Sean Astin might not have been able to add the 'mysterious' quality to the narration, and some viewers may have gotten the first impression that ME was not a fantasy world. Tough choice, but PJ made the right one.

Note that there's no significance to the 'ne-eyed' soon-to-be wraith, but on the other hand, why was such a small detail added? There's no way anyone saw it during his/her first viewing, yet it's there. Was it added on a whim ("Ehh...make one of the Nine one-eyed...") or so that you'd pick up on it subconsciously, seeing that men are not perfect and subject to perils of the world.

The greenness that I see in the battle is just during the wideshot where you see the Elves and men off in the distance. They appear as a green mold on the surface of the moon. Of cource I see the other colors too, but to me the green was deliberate, and think that somewhere that's talked about in the DVD appendices.

Though I too saw that the orcs were attacking using a loose wedge formation, still the orc line must meet with the elven one exactly as the swords are being swung. Note that I've never considered shredding my DVDs over *this* scene....

And I agree that PJ had to make some comprises in regards to what happens in Sauron's final moments, but it still doesn't work for me. Why did he reach with his Ringed hand? Where was his mace? Again, why was he reaching for poor Isildur? Concerning the number of fingers that Sauron looses, I wouldn't care if he lost all ten ("Argh...no fingers! I must then assume the form of an eye..."), but just thought that he's thought to have nine remaining - was there talk about Sauron fighting Aragorn in ROTK, and that this walking Sauron would have nine fingers? Maybe that's where I got it. Anyway, we'll see if there's some mention later in the movies.

And you know that I still don't have my books (even the Hobbit!), but from memory thought that Isildur tries to swim the Anduin, and is shot by orcs. Doesn't Ohtar bring the shards of Narsil back to Rivendell? If so, then why would Isildur yield this, and only this item, yet retain his armor? Again, my memory is failing, but thought that other items were also brought by Ohtar, yet these other things were lost in the countless years. Isn't there a line somewhere like "we kept the shards of Narsil though other relics were lost?" To me, Isildur in the books was no fool, not like his counterpart in the movie (though I understand PJ's change), and so would not attempt the river in weighty armor.

And if he retains his armor, as I assume he does in the movie (it's really hard to tell as it seems to me that he's robed as he floats on the water), then how do all of the arrows hit? I'd be looking for a refund. Anyway...

And please, we can talk about the book vs film differences as long we try to consider 'why' the difference exists. Was it due to lack of time, did it slow the pacing, did PJ think that he needed to simplify a concept, did he just decide to insert himself ("This is MY film, not JRRT's!") or did he just goof it? Let's not cut short the discussion.