LotR1-FotR-Seq01

[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.

[Mister Underhill]

In UT, the battle at the Gladden Fields is, of course, far more protracted, with some attack and maneuver on both sides. In fact, Isildur repents of his pride in keeping the Ring and leaves when he knows the battle is lost to "go to the Keepers of the Three" and give the Ring to them (though I think we can all predict how that might have turned out eventually).

The battle does not take place next to the river; Isildur has a short journey to make before he reaches its banks. "He stood for a while, alone and in despair. Then in haste he cast off all his armour and weapons, save a short sword at his belt, and plunged into the water." In fact, his story is rather moving, for the shadow is lifted from him when he loses the Ring.

Of course there is no room for all this activity and subtlety in the films. It seems quite clear that he's still armored in the shot where the Ring slips from his finger and he reaches for it.

Reg -- I can understand your complaint about the Prologue and sympathize with it. I'm torn. I agree that giving all this exposition about the Ring and its nature right up front spoils a chance for mystery and suspense. On the other hand, we've got to get to the point pretty quickly where we establish Sauron as the enemy and Bilbo's ring as the Ring.

If we've read The Hobbit, we've had time to get used to Bilbo's ring as remarkable but not all that important, and so the early chapters of LotR -- and in particular the scene in Bag End with Gandalf urging Bilbo to give up the Ring -- are suspenseful and surprising. But here in FotR the movie, we don't have the luxury of having had the Ring established for us before, or the time to do it now.

In the end, I think a prologue was necessary, even if it is a wee bit clunky to jam in so much exposition right up front.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

To me, the prologue works in both movie and extended dvd versions. I think it is crucial to explain the importance of the Ring to a non-book person as a story "grabber". It's amazing how well the world of Middle-earth is fitted in. Many
technical critigues above are, of course, warranted. The one I'm most uncomfortable with is the way Sauron lost the Ring. The implication is that without Isildur's lucky swipe all would have been lost, when in ("reality"? ) the Last Alliance had already won with Sauron's personal (one on four- I believe) fight
just essentially a moping up (if nasty one) for the good guys.

P.S. The way PJ briefly put events into a middle-earth historical context was brilliant.
I thin k even CT would appreciate (if he ever deigned to watch the movie) the way depth and legend/myth/history
intermingling was done.

P.P.S. While the extended dvd here is just suppimental to the movie, the next section to be discussed has some interesting variations to each other.

[Essex]

Isildur has a short journey to make before he reaches its banks. "He stood for a while, alone and in despair. Then in haste he cast off all his armour and weapons, save a short sword at his belt, and plunged into the water."

Ah yes, Mister Underhill, I knew I'd read somewhere about the battle, but couldn't find it today before I posted - I might have a read tonight now.

So I concede another difference to the books! he was not rushed, he also removed his armour, etc. he just must of been ambushed away from the fight. Those tricksy Orcs!!!!

[Mister Underhill]

I don't really blame Jackson for changes in Isildur's story. Time is short, and all that's really essential to know is that Isildur kept the Ring, and Isildur lost the Ring in Anduin. Of course, he comes off as rather cowardly in the films, making a run for it the moment that his force is attacked, but that plays into the theme that Jackson wanted to develop later: the weakness of Men.

EDIT -- I forgot to add that I think the filmmakers could have made a more realistic play of Isildur's foray into Anduin than they did, even within the constraints of their condensed account of events. Maybe we see a breastplate become visible as it's cast off, for instance. Or we could have seen Isildur wading in the reeds of the bank rather than swimming in deep water. I confess that I would have liked to seen more attention to this sort of detail on Jackson's part, but when push comes to shove he usually opts for the prettier image over a more truthful moment -- the coordinated Elf-chop, a submerged Isildur grasping for the Ring underwater, etc.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

I don't enjoy this scene. It's quite adequate and it does a good job of introducing viewers to Middle-earth, its peoples, and most importantly the Ring. But I always breathe a sigh of relief when it's over and we enter Bag End for Bilbo's narration. Why? I'm not really sure. I just think it does a pretty rough job of trying to capture the glory of the Second Age and the Last Alliance. Which is hard to do, I'll admit.

I do agree that Cate Blanchett was the best pick for the narrator. It would have been interesting to hear how some others would have done it, though (Ian McKellen, for example).

I also do appreciate the attention to detail in the prologue (things like Elendil's helm later becoming Aragorn's crown).