LotR1-FotR-Seq01

[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).

[Essex]

A note on Cate Blanchett's voiceover. This is a stunning piece of narration. The inflections in her voice, the way she uses a perfect (and I mean Perfect) well spoken English voice in her narration (the best impersination of an English accent I've ever heard - well at least since Dick van Dyke in Mary Poppins! ) - the depth of feeling she reaches with her voice is marvellous. I just love listening to her in the Prologue.

[Cailín]

I’m not sure whether I agree there would have been more suspense and wonder had the prologue been left out. For the ones among us who knew Lord of the Rings before, it is no surprise the ring is evil. But somehow, I don’t think the power and importance of the Ring could have come across in a believable way if we were solely informed of its origins by Gandalf. As classical authors very well knew, sometimes a story works better if you know what the issue is from the start. Should the Ring have come out of nowhere, I don’t think the audience would have been as intrigued. I really think those not familiar with Tolkien’s world need this little piece of background info and it contrasts nicely with the Shire-scene that follows. Even more, since not all people are big on the fantasy thing, the true identity of the Ring (“What Ring? What’s the big deal, anyway?”) might have come off as slightly ridiculous, while the prologue does an extremely good job of drawing people into the mystery atmosphere of the trilogy.

I enjoyed the prologue very much and Cate Blanchett does an excellent job. Sure, not everything is correct, I presume, but I really felt it captured the mood.

Originally Posted by Holbytlass

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'.

This is the only thing that bothered me too.

[alatar]

Can't help it, but if I don't post this now it will be forever lost...though maybe that's a good thing. Hmmm. This was prompted by the posts regarding Bilbo being a thief.

Anyway, we will eventually see a scene in which Gollum is tortured, and surely he is being questioned regarding the whereabouts of the Ring and the thief Baggins.

Can you imagine Sauron asking, "And by the way, when you found the Ring, you didn't see any extra fingers lying around, did you?"

Okay, so it was funnier in my head.