LotR1-FotR-Seq03

[alatar]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

It's all about "bums on seats", luvvie. I do think that much more exposition in this scene would have had many audience members fidgiting in their seats. But that's understandable since, given that the film was essentially billed as an action/adventure (to get them there in the first place), they would be expecting it to keep the pace up.

Can't say it any better than that, SpM. What I don't know, or remember, is the pacing of the theatrical version of this sequence compared to what I just watched. Were even more details left out?

But Frodo's alias does play a part in Bree, doesn't it? Gandalf's warning here helps us to understand why Frodo is so concerned when he sees Pippin identifying him as Baggins rather than Underhill in the Prancing Pony, provoking him to adopt the ill-fated attempt at distraction.

I guess we'll come to that in a couple of weeks, but right now I still think that it's a detail that could have been left out.

Have you not heard of the renowned glue and dog-food factories of Mithlond.

Scary that I had the same thought, yet wanted to be sensitive to the Downs members who may not even considered such a thought/practice.

I agree with this, and the example of the first Alien film is a good one. It's a masterpiece of suspense horror with few graphic "splurge" scenes (although there is of course the obvious one ...). Perhaps it's because SFX have improved or perhaps its because tastes have changed over time, but it seems to be the "modern way" to show as much as possible these days. Like you, I personally prefer the understated, suspense-building approach, but I can understand why Jackson may have thought it necessary to match the expectations of today's audiences.

More agreement - what's happening to me? Maybe some of the younger members who have seen not only FotR but also the first 'Alien' movie can give us their take on the understated/overstated issue. Back in the day I found the movie Salem's Lot (1979) creepy, and you don't even see the vampire until late in the flick. It was made-for-TV, no gore, most things take place off screen, yet it was still scary.

It would also have given rise to problems with Merry and Pippin. Either they would have had to have been older (which would rather work against their film characterisations) or they would have had to have been omitted from Bilbo's party (which would then require additional time introducing them later on).

We first see Merry and Pippin as fools, then I guess we would jump 17 years into the future to see them less as fools. Which are they? And though we are only in seq03, we've already met 5 of the Nine Walkers along with Bilbo, Elrond, Galadriel and Gollum. And I'm guessing that with the exception of Merry and Pippin (who at this point are indistinguishable fools), most movie goers might already understand a little about each of the named characters.

[Essex]

So no one bothered with the Ring being made much more 'powerful' in these early scenes (ie gandlaf can't pick it up without 'seing' the Eye)? and that Frodo didn't wear it (or not even on a chain) whilst in the Shire?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Essex

So no one bothered with the Ring being made much more 'powerful' in these early scenes (ie gandlaf can't pick it up without 'seing' the Eye)? and that Frodo didn't wear it (or not even on a chain) whilst in the Shire?

Note exactly sure what you mean. I guess that I've accepted the POV that the Ring was never used, and that even Bilbo used it sparingly, if at all. And Gandalf getting a vision of Sauron was okay - what was that big eye, as the last time that we saw him, Sauron was a large walking armored giant? Maybe Gandalf was as clueless as we were supposed to be. And the Ring's power grows as Sauron declares himself, which in the movie I assume happens when Mount Doom explodes in fire, as Gandalf's sees off in the distance.


My feeling is that (1) there wasn't time to show 'time' between Gandalf's departure and return, and (2) if Frodo could use the Ring initially with little effect, then it might have been harder to show the danger/gravity later.

[Essex]

what I mean, Alatar, (and we'll no doubt get onto it later), is that the Ring has been made more powerful, and a direct contact to Sauron - this is shown when he says 'I can see you' (or something like this!) when Frodo puts the Ring on in Bree.

Also, we therefore never see Sam wear the Ring near Cirith Ungol - therefore Sam is not a Ring Bearer - therefore Sam doesn't follow Frodo years later to the West - (and also Frodo got on Jacksons Middle-earth's 'Last' ship...........)
anyway - more on this later.

I want to raise another point I had a massive slanging match on on another forum a couple of years back - It's Gandalf's thoughts when Frodo says he can't see any markings on the Ring. I put it to you that there is DISSAPOINTMENT on his face (not relief as everyone else seemed to think at the time) - The reason behind this is that it was Gandalf's JOB to find the Ring so he could help the people of Middle-earth defeat Suaron. He thought he'd found it, but for that second, alas no.

Anyway, this is a purely film point, as it doesn't happen in the book anyway.....

PS

and that even Bilbo used it sparingly, if at all.

he seemed to put it on OK during the Party!!!!! and seemed to have no trouble - indeed he seemed mighty pleased with himself when he put it back in his pocket - so no direct line to Sauron there..............no if we did have a 17 year gap then I might (perhaps) understand the direct link to Sauron theme.

This is one of my major bug bears with the film.......

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Essex

what I mean, Alatar, (and we'll no doubt get onto it later), is that the Ring has been made more powerful, and a direct contact to Sauron - this is shown when he says 'I can see you' (or something like this!) when Frodo puts the Ring on in Bree.

Okay, didn't see the Bree connection in this sequence. I think that all of that hullabaloo regarding Sauron seeing Frodo was to repetitiously connect the Ring with Sauron and evil. And note that timeline-wise, the Bree scene occurs after Mount Doom erupts. Was this why Frodo doesn't get the same experience as Gandalf when he briefly handles the Ring in Bag End after Bilbo leaves (though he handles is later...hmmm)? Could it be that unless he wears it, he is not sensitive enough or as perceptive as Gandalf is to see Sauron until Sauron awakes?

Also, we therefore never see Sam wear the Ring near Cirith Ungol - therefore Sam is not a Ring Bearer - therefore Sam doesn't follow Frodo years later to the West.

Though we don't explicitly see Sam wear the Ring at Cirith Ungol. I will allow that it happened off screen (something I learned to permit from our many discussions ).

I want to raise another point I had a massive slanging match on on another forum a couple of years back - It's Gandalf's thoughts when Frodo says he can't see any markings on the Ring. I put it to you that there is DISSAPOINTMENT on his face (not relief as everyone else seemed to think at the time) - The reason behind this is that it was Gandalf's JOB to find the Ring so he could help the people of Middle-earth defeat Suaron. He thought he'd found it, but for that second, alas no.

Very interesting idea! To me, it seems that Gandalf is hoping this is one of the lesser Rings, and when Frodo confirms that it's not, Gandalf expresses sadness as he realizes that either Sauron will recover it and conquer all, or that it will be used to overthrow Sauron somehow, yet Frodo at the very least will suffer along the way. What you are saying is that Gandalf was hoping that this was indeed the One, and was disappointed when Frodo initially didn't see the elvish script. Gandalf is hoping that with the resurfacing of the One Ring that doom is near, and his work will come to an end, one way or another.


Not that I'd want to start a poll, but how have others interpretted Gandalf's reactions?

PS he seemed to put it on OK during the Party!!!!! and seemed to have no trouble - indeed he seemed mighty pleased with himself when he put it back in his pocket - so no direct line to Sauron there..............no if we did have a 17 year gap then I might (perhaps) understand the direct link to Sauron theme.

Rewatch the scene when you get a chance. As Bilbo's speech wanes, he becomes more nervous and to me unbalanced. It's like he doesn't want to put on the Ring. When he reaches Bag End, however, he's pretty chipper and pleased with himself. Was he anxious because he was going to disappear in front of a crowd? Or was it the 'taste' that he would get from the Ring? After getting his fix, he's better, though maybe a bit more on the darker side of things. To me it mirrors an addict's actions.

Great thoughts, by the by.

[Mister Underhill]

This thread has moved very quickly, and there are many great observations and insights here. I only have time to chip in a few thoughts here and there:

Voice-over narration
According to Hollywood legend, Harrison Ford did the studio-ordered narration for Blade Runner in the flattest monotone he could manage in hopes that it would be so bad that they wouldn't use it after all. It seems to me I've since read denials of that story, but make of it what you will. I love the narration in Conan the Barbarian, which is presented in the form of a "sidekick" character recounting a tale from the past, and in Apocalypse Now, in which the narrator -- Willard -- narrates events more or less as they happen, almost as if they were journal entries or something. Narration provides an elegant solution to the exposition problems in Braveheart.

Overall I don't think I'd have liked more of it in LotR than is there, but I might have more to say on this later...

The Time-line
I think PJ definitely fails to give the sense of much time passing while Gandalf is away, particularly in the theatrical release. I saw it in the theater with non-fans and fans who hadn't read LotR in years, and I distinctly remember that they were confused by the sequence. Tolkien, though he was no dramatist, may have had the right instincts here when he said he favored abridgement over compression "with resultant over-crowding and confusion, blurring of climaxes, and general degradation". I'd like to come back to this point later with more ideas, but no time right now, alas.

Frodo
We start to see the differences between the book and the Jackson/Woods characterization. I really dislike the vacant, dumb smile on Frodo's face at the Green Dragon when he toasts Sandyman's "wisdom". This is the beginning of a trend of weakening Frodo's character which I can't quite understand. Is it the Gaffer who comments that Frodo is "cracking", just like Bilbo? The only sign we've seen so far that he's different from any other hobbit is the first shot of him reading a book.

Like Essex, I missed the scene where Frodo can't throw the Ring into his hearth.

Cheap Suspense
In this sequence, Jackson also unveils for the first time his willingness to trade plot and character logic for cheap suspense. The already rough Gandalf-research/Nazgul-unleashed sequence becomes even more confusing with the inclusion of an attempt to trick the audience into thinking that there might be a Nazgul waiting in Bag End for Frodo. I hate how Gandalf reaches out of the darkness and grabs Frodo's shoulder -- would anyone ever do that except in a movie?

Another of these is the bit with the "fiery letters" on the Ring. Why would the letters flare up several seconds after the Ring has been taken from the fire? It's little details like this that add up and bother me over the course of the trilogy.

One of my biggest disappointments in Jackson as a director is his eagerness to go for these transient sort of moments even at the expense of the overall picture.

Things I Like
The models of Barad-dûr and Minas Tirith are fabulous. I really enjoyed the preview of the latter, in particular. The design of the Nazgûl is excellent. And, as has been mentioned many times, lines straight from Tolkien are always welcome.

Back for more later, and maybe more on the POV albatross I raised in the previous thread.

[Rimbaud]

This sequence contains one of the few seconds of film that make the trilogy for me. Sadly the one that really hooked me was McKellan's look to Frodo at the Council that I will have to elaborate expanisvely upon later , but here it is Ian again, with his reaction to the ring. As, perhaps unarguably, the best actor in the picture (and for lack of whom much of TTT doesn't work for me) it behooves Gandalf to make the most of his status. And here he does it brilliantly. Nobody can fail but to be impressed that the Ring is a Nasty Piece of Work by his reaction. For me, this is the clincher on that story-line - from then on the audience knows it's bad; where all the 'bouncing' and Williams music built it up, here one look from a decent actor tells you 300% as much.

Sadly, as happens often in these flicks, Jackson tries very hard to spoil his actors' best work by throwing in a lot of soft-focus jumbalaya with mutterings of riddles and such, but the initial impact was enough and we know.

For the rest of the sequence, I'm with Mr U. It's overly compressed, disorienting, and could perhaps (come on, shout me down) have been done better with a voice-over...?

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Another of these is the bit with the "fiery letters" on the Ring. Why would the letters flare up several seconds after the Ring has been taken from the fire? It's little details like this that add up and bother me over the course of the trilogy.

The same reason the Ring sits for like twenty seconds on the floor of Mount Doom before it finally crumbles and disappears. To build up the tension. From a book perspective, I don't like it, but from a movie perspectice, I think it does what it's supposed to do.

And, my bad in my earlier post. "The Black Rider" track doesn't occur until Sequence 4!

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by Essex

what I mean, Alatar, (and we'll no doubt get onto it later), is that the Ring has been made more powerful, and a direct contact to Sauron - this is shown when he says 'I can see you' (or something like this!) when Frodo puts the Ring on in Bree.

The one analogous event from the book that comes to my mind is when Frodo is seated upon Amon Hen and we read:

And suddently he felt the Eye. There was an eye in the Dark Tower that did not sleep. he knew that it had become aware of his gaze. A fierce eager will was there. It leaped towards him; almost like a finger he felt it, searching for him. Very soon it would nail him down, know just exactly where he was. Amon Lhaw it touched. It glanced upon Tol Brandir - he threw himself from teh seat, crouching, covering his head with his grey hood.

It seems that PJ adapted this part of the book to cinematic form and did it in a respectable way. He was trying to show that Sauron's power is growing and how the ring is tied to him and with Saron's stength increasing his awareness of the ring is increasing and those who use it will be under his eye.

PJ needs to establish this power early on so it is done at this sequence for this exact reason, so the audience knows that Frodo should not use it and later we see the consequences of him using it at Bree.

Sorry if this skipped ahead a bit but it's addressing issues that have arisen due to this sequence.

[Essex]

Yes, Mormegil, but as always, when you start to muck about with the plot (and what a tight superbly conceived plot it is) of LOTR, you begin to see the cracks. For example, Frodo puts on the ring in Bree and INSTANTLY Sauron is there and aware of him.

At Parth Galen, Frodo puts it on the escape Boromir, but Sauron does not seem to be aware of him until his climbed all the way to the top of the Amon Hen and sat near the Seat of Seeing.

So why could he wear it for that amount of time, going up the hill, and to add to this, why not wear it when he came back down (as he does in the book).

It just gives inconsistencies to the story when the scriptwriters come up with their own ideas (or embellishments.....)

Sorry, jumped far, far ahead of myself here with this post - I just want to show that the seeds of many changes that the Scriptwriters do work like falling dominoes all the way through the film...........

[Cailín]

I don't have much time right now, but I do wish to say something about the suggested narration or voice-over in these scenes. The problem is, I think, not only that a voice-over has a way of distancing the viewer from the story, but that later on in the movie, a voice-over would have definitely had no place in the movies. Once you establish a narrator in a movie or a book or any story, you are more or less forced to be consistent and have the narrator make regular appearances throughout the story. Now, I can personally think of very few and perhaps no other points in the three movies where a narrator would have added something to the story. PJ made the right choice by only occasionally let one of the characters narrate something.

About the short scene with the Wood Elves... this has rapidly become one of my favorite moments in the book, which is enough to ensure that I was quite disappointed with the adaptation of that particular scene. I must say that - though this is probably personal - I had never pictured the Elves to be so solemn, but I suppose it's impossible to really capture my image of the Elves on screen.