LotR1-FotR-Seq02

[Mister Underhill]

I just don't think there's only one way to "mass marketability". Adaptation is an art, not a mathematical proof.

And you're right that there are obviously future implications to be thought through for any particular approach. Maybe by going down some roads, we will see why the filmmakers ultimately didn't take them. In the case of my hypothetical, you trade the exposition up front for a more mysterious build-up of the Ring. Why does Gandalf seem so unnerved by it? Why does Bilbo have such a hard time giving it up? And who are these dudes in the black cloaks who are sniffing around? Eventually you get the whole story. This is how it works in the book, and it doesn't seem to have hurt Tolkien's mass-appeal.

I think we can stipulate that Jackson's adaptation demonstrably has mass-appeal because his movies made a boatload of money. And naturally there were constraints governing some of the choices he made, and these are worth discussing. But just remember that every time you defend one of Jackson's choices based solely on mass-appeal or cite his box office returns as argument-ending proof of his genius, a skwerl dies. Don't be a skwerl-killer.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

But just remember that every time you defend one of Jackson's choices based solely on mass-appeal or cite his box office returns as argument-ending proof of his genius, a skwerl dies. Don't be a skwerl-killer.

Aw! Whyd'ya have to go and take away all my arguments so early on ...

Seriously, I'm not planning on defending any of Jackson's decisions based solely on mass-appeal. I'm just saying that it's a factor in his decision-making. And I am keen to make sure that we keep in mind that these films were made for a wider audience than solely pre-existing fans of the books.

Nor am I suggesting that a delayed exposition wouldn't necessarily work. My inclination is that film audiences, particularly today, have less patience than book readers, at least when it comes to setting up the basis for the story. Or, to put it another way, film-makers have less leeway, in terms of timing and audience expectation, than authors. But I'm willing to suspend judgement and see how it works out (if you're willing to follow it through ).

Of course, any suggested alternative structures are unproven, whereas Jackson's decisions are proven at the box-office ...

*Hark, is that a skwerl I hear thudding to the ground?*

[Boromir88]

As I'm sure you all know that I'm maybe one of the most critical people when it comes to the films. I will say that even as a book fan, I happened to like the Prologue. And do not think it would work well later on in the movies, or cut out and replaced with some more indepth information.

The Prologue gets you introduced to the story of the Ring and the set up. I think if you keep it as a narrative (atleast for me) it wouldn't be as interesting. I mean having Gandalf and Frodo (or even Bilbo if they wanted to) sit in Bag End and talk replay history through dialogue wouldn't be as eye-catching. Unless they wanted to use flashbacks sort of interspliced with the dialogue?

Why does Gandalf seem so unnerved by it? Why does Bilbo have such a hard time giving it up? And who are these dudes in the black cloaks who are sniffing around?

I actually think most of these are pretty well answered early on. Maybe because I've read the book prior to the movies, but I thought the movies answered these pretty well. Atleast the first two questions, maybe not the Nazgul.

We see (through the prologue actually) the corruption the Ring has. We see it wiht Isildur, and Gollum (There it consumed him) right off the bat. Then Bilbo has trouble giving it up. I do wish that they would have had some mention of Bilbo saying the Ring kept slipping off his finger. Because, I think this is rather an important aspect of the ring. It can change sizes (a question I've heard alot...does the Ring change sizes? Why?)

And as to Gandalf being unnerved by it is pretty well shown with his reaction to Bilbo "disappearing" at the party. He knows something's up with that Ring, then we delve further into when he says "It's been called that before, but not by you." So, he obviously feels this is the One Ring and he goes to read Isildur's scroll to get a confirmation. (Though that's not til the next scene I think).

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by Boro

I actually think most of these are pretty well answered early on. Maybe because I've read the book prior to the movies, but I thought the movies answered these pretty well. Atleast the first two questions, maybe not the Nazgul.

Quite right, Boro -- and you've done a proper job of explaining how the film answers these things. I was just wondering how it might work in a scenario where the audience wasn't given the answers to these questions right off the bat. Because as it stands now, we already know the Ring is the Ring, we know it's bad news, we've learned that it's the creation of the Big Bad Dude in Black Armor -- we spend the good part of this sequence waiting for Gandalf to start to catch up to what we already know.

On the other hand, the prologue arguably works in the sense that we know that this evil thing is in the Shire and are anticipating, "What is going to happen in this idyllic, peaceful place because the Ring is there?" It's hard for me to judge one solution against the other objectively because I can't recreate being a movie-goer seeing the story unfold for the first time Jackson-style.

Whether you keep the prologue or not, though, I was simply noting ways in which the sequence might have been presented more from Frodo's point-of-view rather than Gandalf's. Just sort of wondering what motivated that choice, and how it impacts the story as a whole, and what effect a different approach might have had.

And any way you slice it, you're absolutely right that you don't give the Ring's history by having two characters sitting and chatting about it. But flashbacks with Gandalf (and maybe Elrond too) as narrator are interesting to think about.

Originally Posted by SPM

Or, to put it another way, film-makers have less leeway, in terms of timing and audience expectation, than authors.

I tend to agree with this, but I still don't see how it necessarily militates for Jackson's solution. In fact, conventional moviemaking wisdom dictates that you don't start a movie with ten minutes of solid exposition, so in a way I see Jackson actually bucking a traditional "mass-appeal" dictum with his approach.

Interesting side note: in ancient Greece, a character named Prologue would come onstage and simply tell the audience the information they needed to know in order to understand and become emotionally involved in the play.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Aw! Whyd'ya have to go and take away all my arguments so early on ...

Seriously, I'm not planning on defending any of Jackson's decisions based solely on mass-appeal. I'm just saying that it's a factor in his decision-making. And I am keen to make sure that we keep in mind that these films were made for a wider audience than solely pre-existing fans of the books. [/I]*

Quite right, I had not read the books before I saw the movies, but after.
And it's not fair that pre movie Tolkien fanatics get to nag on ones (like me) who didn't know how wonderful LOTR was until Peter Jackson came out with the films.