PJ's Choices

[ReededGoat]

I've been burning with a number of questions ever since I saw the FOTR (seven times in the theatre - yes I loved the film). I find that it is the things I like the most that I often have the most problems with...seems contradictory, but I'm sure most of you will understand.<BR>I wonder if anyone has heard anything from the PJ camp that answers any of my 'problems' with the picture...I'm sure some of these might be answered in the Extended DVD, but I can't be overly sure.<P>Why the drastic change in Aragorn's character? Yes, it is very drastic, and I wonder why it was thought to be more dramatically effective to make him doubt his ability to take up the Kingship of Gondor. The Aragorn of the novel is incredibly assertive, though humble, and is more than ready to take up his position as leader and king. One of the worst effects this change had in the film was to totally take the punch out of his introduction at the Council of Elrond...Legolas introducing him was so anti-climatic, whereas the scene in the book would have been powerfully effective on the screen if left as-is (he casts the shards of Narsil onto the table and proclaims his true name and heritage). This is probably one of my biggest problems with the film so far.<P>Why does Gimli think that everything is going to be a party time when they show up in Moria? There is even a pretty awkward moment when they first enter the suspiciously dark chamber beyond the doors when Gimli is walking amongst skulls and skeletons (which he doesn't seem to notice, somehow) talking of the food and beer they will enjoy in the Dwarven Citadel. In the novel he was more concerned about finding out what happened to Balin and his followers...he definitely doesn't think they'll be happening upon a pretty picture since they were never heard from after they set out to Moria.<P>The double bridge sequence in Moria was a bit much as well...when the stairs fall away and there is that painfully long, obvious, formulaic cliffhanger sequence when Aragorn and Frodo are separated from everyone else. I understand the most likely aspect of this scene from a character development point of view would be to show how Aragorn will stay with Frodo no matter what, but you could have nixed it (weighing in at a hefty few minutes) and kept more Lothlorien stuff in the cinematic version. Just my humble opinion (I know everyone has their own things they would do, I'm just trying to see what other people are thinking).<P>Peace,<BR>RG

[Birdland]

Welcome to the Barrow-Downs, ReededGoat. You've seen the film seven times? What took you so long to get here? <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Why does Gimli think that everything is going to be a party time when they show up in Moria?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I have to admit that that particular scene was sort of awkward. I know that PJ was trying to build the suspense, but even if they didn't know they were stumbling around in a bunch of corpses, surely the <I>smell</I> would have tipped them off?<p>[ November 09, 2002: Message edited by: Birdland ]

[Elven Mistress]

Aye, I mean, wouldn't Gimle KNOW that they were all dead? I mean, the were SKELETONS, with practicaly NO skin...wouldn't he have found out somewhere down the line? Or smelt it like Birdland said?<P>I also don't understand, to go along with the double bridge scene, why Aragorn couldn't let Frodo save Gandalf. Of course it would TOTALLY ruin Gandalf becoming White and TOTALLY ruin the story...but when i first saw it and had never read the books, that's what i wondered...

[Kalimac]

Reed (OK if I call you that for short? ) I can see why you didn't like the change to Aragorn's character since it does depart from the book a good bit at first. I think PJ changed it for a reason, though - mostly trying to avoid too much telling as opposed to showing. Since not everyone's read the book or even knows that Aragorn has anything to do with Isildur of 3,000 years ago, they probably thought it would be better to establish the connection some way besides having Strider leap up at the Council of Elrond and announce his name, rank and serial number, thus leaving the audience with even more questions than could possibly be answered in any filmed scene of the council ("Wait, he's Isildur's descendant? Then WHY isn't he the King? Why's he just wandering around ready to rescue the hobbits?"). Working in the scene with Arwen where he says "The same blood flows in my veins" establishes that he's the heir without whacking the audience over the head with the fact, and having Arwen encourage him shows that they have a very close relationship and that she's pretty much his guiding light; again, that's much better than just being TOLD that Arwen is his inspiration without ever actually seeing her do anything inspirational for him. Also it gives a quick gloss of an explanation for why he hasn't gone to take back his throne a long time ago. True, this is different from the book, but imagine how much time it would take to summarize in a movie speech - even in the book it takes a while to absorb. And notice how quickly Arwen convinces him that he's OK after all, so he can go back to acting like the Aragorn in the book . (Whew! That's settled, I'm Isildur's heir, not Isildur himself. Now I can go back to being rugged and confident. Fear me, enemies of Gondor!) <P>As for Gimli and Moria - including the bit at the Council about how Balin is back in Moria but they haven't heard from him for a while - well, it's good but ultimately it's a thread that leads nowhere. It would take up at least a few minutes of screentime while Gimli and Gloin talked about it (not terribly fascinating for someone who has no idea who Balin is or why we should care about him). Then we get the Mines and find out Balin's dead - very sad and shocking, of course, but perhaps even moreso if you haven't had the heavy hinting that something's gone wrong. For someone who's read the book, it's fine, but if you haven't it would just look like pointless foreshadowing. I do agree, though, that Gimli was pretty slow in the uptake, i.e. corpses lying all over the place while he carries on about the warm welcome they'll receive. My only hypothesis on this is that they've just run into the mines and all they can really see is Gandalf's staff; we as the audience are, thanks to the magic of filmmaking, seeing a lot more than the characters are. As for the smell - well, the Fellowship probably aren't too fragrant themselves, after 40 days in Hollin or whatever it was .<P>The scene on the stairs was well-done but could have been cut a lot. And maybe fewer shots of the Ring in somebody's palm; OK, we get it already. And while it didn't really annoy me that the Ring kept going on and off the chain (surely the hobbits have invented clasps, so why shouldn't that be possible?) I did wonder how the Ring stayed ON the chain. The chain didn't seem to be looped around the inside of the ring; instead it seemed to be attached to a little hook on the top, except of course the One Ring doesn't HAVE a hook on top..oh well. Time for me to cool down. . <P>Just my $0.02. Thanks for reading.<P>- Kalimac

[Tigerlily Gamgee]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I also don't understand, to go along with the double bridge scene, why Aragorn couldn't let Frodo save Gandalf. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>It was Boromir who grabbed Frodo, not Aragorn.<P>As for the complaints... well, they don't bother me.<BR>When it comes to Aragorn... the character is an actor's choices working with a director's visions. Viggo didn't just sit back and say, "So PJ tell me what I need to think, do..." etc. They worked together on a character they that thought represented Aragorn in the best of ways.<BR>I think it works better to see Aragorn grow into his responsibilites. There wouldn't be much character growth without it. I really enjoyed how Aragorn was played in the movie. Besides... isn't being a humble king better than being a cockey king?

[ReededGoat]

Well...maybe humble's better than cocky, but I hope you don't mean that the Aragorn of the film is therefore better than the one in the book...<BR>As for the changes made that I mentioned, I understand the need to change things to accomodate understanding amongst an audience that might not be familiar with the books, I just think that the ones that I mentioned could have had a bit more thought put in, and solutions found that could keep things a bit closer to the book. One should only derivate when absolutely necessary - as I've said, these are merely my opinions, and I don't get my panties too much in a bundle over it...I love FOTR, and know that I will love TTT...Because I love them, I get more involved with them and have a lot more criticisms to levy.<BR>One observation made that was very astute, and I quite agree...PJ could have cut down on his use of ring-shots, and slo-mo shots and saved at least ten minutes of screen time...the end of the film works great, but the whole Sam drowning scene is painfully long...oh, and that brings up another possible issue...many justifications can be made for Frodo meeting up with Aragorn, Merry and Pippin on his way to the boat, but was it the best choice?<P>Call me Reed if you want, but I prefer RG<P>RG

[Diamond18]

I agree about them being much too heavy on the Ring shots. Especially just before Frodo gets into the boat. I mean, Merry and Pippin have just practically sacrificed their lives for him (for all he knows) and he's just standing there...staring...with the Ring out there for anyone to come grab. That's just a tiny peeve on my part though.<P>I agree with Kalimac about the whole Aragorn thing. It was a justifiable change, and we know that Aragorn was not always the paragon of confidence in the book. At Amon Hen he was all wishy-washy, and even said at one point, "Alas! An ill fate is on me this day, and all that I do goes amiss." At that part in the movie, instead of missing out on all the action, he's shown fighting off Orcs in kickbutt fashion. So it was give and take: at one point he was less confident, at another he was more confident.<P>I'm surprised that I seem to be the only person who actually liked the 'drowning' scene. I thought it was very touching, but all the time I hear, "The drowning scene was too much, they could have cut that." I recall it being rather comic in the book, like Sam the bumbling idiot who forgot he couldn't swim, but in the movie you see that Sam knows he can't swim but doesn't care...he's not letting Frodo go. I dunno, I just liked that whole scene (after Frodo finally got in the boat, that is!).<P>RG, the first time I saw the movie I thought Frodo meeting up with Aragorn was pretty darn wierd. I was kind of thinking, "What? That never happened! Aragorn wouldn't have let him go!" I also thought that it was terribly foolish of Frodo to let Aragorn hover his hand over the Ring and everything.<P>While I still think it was too foolish of Frodo, after seeing that scene a bunch more times, I think it was a decent way for them to show Aragorn being tempted by the Ring and resisting the temptation. The subsiquent quote by Boromir sums up the whole reason for that scene: "Then you did what I could not."<P>And then with Merry and Pippin, I think Kalimac touched on this in a different thread (so I'm stealing your idea, Kalimac ). It gave them a chance to do something worthwhile for Frodo. Throughout the movie they bumbled around and caused trouble, but by doing something so brave as to divert the Orcs (again, at the risk of their lives) gives them a purpose and heralds the character changes that will come in the next two movies.<P>BTW, where did you get that nickname?

[ReededGoat]

Diamond18 (and everyone),<BR>I do accept the need to establish certain things with that ending scene, and I agree with much that you had to say...we see Aragorn's strength in his ability to resist the ring...Merry and Pippin are set up to be the more serious characters that they will be in TTT...non-read audiences will need that sort of transition to set up what M and P will be experiencing...<BR>The scene with Sam drowning was touching, and I loved it, and thought that it really showcased his dedication to Frodo...it was still painfully long for him to be floating in the water and drowning...it would have been as effective if it was at least a few seconds shorter...Best use of slo-mo combined with music only was following Gandalf's fall in Moria...I felt it was a bit gratuitous and overused in the Sam drowning scene...the simple fact that he is doing what he was doing was powerful enough..it didn't need to be drawn out.<BR>Reeded Goat is a name I use and created myself. I am an Uilleann Piper, and am really into mountain goats - I think they are cool...so I am a piper who digs goats - pipes are reeded instruments...reeded goat...that was the development of it. It is also the name of a pub in the fantasy novel I am writing.<P>Peace,<BR>RG

[Diamond18]

Cool I love the Uilleann Pipes.

[Kalimac]

Thanks, Diamond! Feel free to quote my ideas all you like (actually I can't even remember what thread I said that in about M&P, but I still hold by it). I also liked the drowning scene and didn't think it was too long - actually the slow-mo was a good way to catch your breath after after all the rapid-fire Orc-slaying scenes. And I'll admit, the last scene between Aragorn and Frodo threw me for a loop at first as well, especially when Aragorn says "I would have followed you to the end," and my first thought was "Well then, why DON'T you?"<P>But after rereading TTT and FOTR it looks like what PJ was doing was just being efficient. In the scene after Boromir's sendoff, Legolas, Gimli and Aragorn spend several hours dithering about whether they should follow Frodo and Sam or whether they should follow Merry and Pippin. In the Aragorn decides, in almost the same words as he uses in the movie, that the Ringbearer's fate is out of their hands, obviously fate doesn't mean them to do anything more for him directly at that point, but that they still do have a chance to save the other hobbits. So off they go. By having Aragorn say that to Frodo we're seeing at once that he can (a) reject temptation and (b) realizes that the Ring's fate is now out of hands for whatever fatalistic or mystical reasons. That way, after Boromir is sent down the river, he and the other two can get right down to Orc-chasing instead of spending some unproductive screen time making up their minds.<p>[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: Kalimac ]

[Jeli Baggins]

i didn't think all the other ring-shots were nessicary, but the one when he's about to leave in the boat was needed. i think it's showing him think of all that's happened to him and his fellow hobbits since they still lived in the peaceful Shire. it's really hard to explain, but it seems as though he's thinking also of all he's leaving behind, and all he's going to be faced w/ in the future. that's what always make me cry at that part. how sad and scary it is for the hobbits. i dunno if that made sense, but in my head it does. lol