LotR2-TTT-Seq06

[Farael]

First of all, I'd like to say that Gandalf's voice deserves a star. Anyone else thinks that his voice is even stronger than Saruman's? Of course, when we hear Saruman and Gandalf facing each other, Saruman is already the weakest one, even if he doesn't know it... but I'm straying too far ahead.

Back on to this scene, I think the marshes are very well done but I have not much to add into the discussion. One thing I would like to say is that we see Gollum/Smeagol striving for friendship in his own wretched way, and being rejected. I love how Gollum becomes more evident as Smeagol keeps on getting rejected by Sam and Frodo.

Sam and Frodo do treat Gollum as a dog... and it even promted a comment from me last time I watched TTT with my friend... "I'd like to have a Smeagol as a pet... not the Gollum side, but the Smeagol". I hadn't thought until then that he was indeed being treated as such pet.

Now, here's a concern of sorts... I can't recall from the book, but does Gandalf refuse to tell the three hunters where the hobbits are? It just feels like a cheap attempt at making everything sound more "misterious" even though we already know where they are. Even if you have not read the books, you can guess that they are with Barbol. Erm, I mean Treebeard =D

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Farael

First of all, I'd like to say that Gandalf's voice deserves a star. Anyone else thinks that his voice is even stronger than Saruman's? Of course, when we hear Saruman and Gandalf facing each other, Saruman is already the weakest one, even if he doesn't know it... but I'm straying too far ahead.

Have to check out the commentary, but I think that, when the Three Hunters first encounter the White Wizard, it's first Christopher Lee's voice (or a pretty close imitation) then Ian McKellen's. I guess that we're supposed to be sitting in trepidation, thinking that this is Saruman. Didn't the trailer already spoil this?

Now, here's a concern of sorts... I can't recall from the book, but does Gandalf refuse to tell the three hunters where the hobbits are? It just feels like a cheap attempt at making everything sound more "misterious" even though we already know where they are. Even if you have not read the books, you can guess that they are with Barbol. Erm, I mean Treebeard =D

Book-Gandalf finally gets around to it, and in the movie I thought that he was going to when Aragorn chides him that he's still close and talking as the Wise always seem to do ('the explanations needed by others are just so bothersome...' or something), but no. I think that PJ falls into the habit of continually wanting to surprise us. Gandalf's sudden appearance in Bag End is where it started, and in this movie we're going to see a wide diversion just for the sake of 'is he coming back?'-itis. I'm okay with the use of the lost and found characters now and then, but continuously? Is this something that non-readers found good or frustrating? As a reader and someone who followed the development of the films, pretending to kill of characters was just bad.

[Farael]

Originally Posted by alatar

Book-Gandalf finally gets around to it, and in the movie I thought that he was going to when Aragorn chides him that he's still close and talking as the Wise always seem to do ('the explanations needed by others are just so bothersome...' or something), but no. I think that PJ falls into the habit of continually wanting to surprise us. Gandalf's sudden appearance in Bag End is where it started, and in this movie we're going to see a wide diversion just for the sake of 'is he coming back?'-itis. I'm okay with the use of the lost and found characters now and then, but continuously? Is this something that non-readers found good or frustrating? As a reader and someone who followed the development of the films, pretending to kill of characters was just bad.

I think it's just over-kill. While the movies are very good and for the most part I didn't notice the "overkill" the first time around, but as I watched it for the second (and third) time, it's a bit of a mood killer. I think Gimli's jokes could be another example. Sure, he's a lovable bearded little dwarf, and he can be funny at times... but when he's the only funny one, while the others are solemn he turns into a clown... and Gimli is not supposed to be a clown.

[Guinevere]

Sorry for just popping in with a comment! It's a pity I don't have time to follow all the threads, but in this sequence is something that I feel strongly about.

originally quoted by Essex
and the way frodo reacts to him by throwing the lembas on the floor a few feet from him. again like throwing your scraps to your dog.

the only time I ever feel remorse for gollum is in these scenes where frodo pushes him away, and we have the shocked, sad look on his face. marvelous 'acting' here.

That's exactly how I felt too!
But the difference to Frodo's behaviour in the book is striking:

Frodo broke off a portion of a wafer and handed it to him on its leaf-wrapping.

and when Gollum is disgusted at it and complains he is starving:

"I'm sorry," said Frodo; "but I can't help you, I'm afraid. I think this food would do you good, if you would try. But perhaps you can't even try, not yet anyway."

I wonder why they decided to change Frodo's character so drastically? They've not only taken away all his courage but the element of mercy and pity that was so important to Tolkien.

[alatar]

Though there is mention that Gollum relates to Frodo in a dog-like fashion (there are examples of Gollum exhibiting canine behavior), Frodo, as mentioned, does not treat Gollum like a dog. PJ's Frodo is more one-dimensional.

[Farael]

Originally Posted by alatar

Though there is mention that Gollum relates to Frodo in a dog-like fashion (there are examples of Gollum exhibiting canine behavior), Frodo, as mentioned, does not treat Gollum like a dog. PJ's Frodo is more one-dimensional.

I'm saying this from memory, so I could be wrong... but I believe in the book it's not Frodo who treats Gollum as a dog... it's Gollum himself who behaves as one to "please" his new Master. I don't think that at any point in time we get an indication of Frodo treating Gollum as anything but another human (or should I say hobbit?). Correct me if I'm wrong though.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Well, Frodo does order, "Down!" at one point in the book, and deals with Gollum like a dog a couple times, though for the most part he treats him like another human being. I don't mind this aspect of their relationship in the film at all, though.

It's very interesting to observe the Frodo-Sam-Gollum relationship dynamic in TTT, and then to see how it turns on its head in ROTK. In TTT, Frodo is presented as being wiser, more merciful, and more mature than Sam, as he spares Gollum's life and makes him lead them to Mordor while Sam becomes petty and jealous of Gollum. In ROTK, Frodo is presented as being blinded to Gollum's true nature, and eventually abandons Sam, while Sam is the hero who sees Gollum for who he really is, and eventually rescues Frodo. Obviously, this is the way it is in the films, not the books.

So what changes? How come Frodo is right in TTT and Sam is right in ROTK? I think it really comes about because of the change in Gollum's character. In TTT, we see a Gollum who is very conflicted, and feels the call of the Ring, but ultimately wants to "be good," at least until the end. In ROTK, we see a Gollum who argues with himself again towards the beginning, but other than that is just evil.

But I don't think Frodo and Sam's positions really change that much. Although, Frodo seems to be blind in ROTK, and I don't ever get that impression in TTT. And of course, Sam in ROTK seems to have rid himself of the sibling rivalry mentality he had in TTT. But their basic positions -- Frodo, Gollum good; Sam, Gollum bad -- don't change a bit.

So there's my dissertation, and as usual, it delves heavily into future sequences. Oh well, at least I'm not giving it in an Aragorn thread.

[Essex]

Originally Posted by Guinevere

I wonder why they decided to change Frodo's character so drastically? They've not only taken away all his courage but the element of mercy and pity that was so important to Tolkien.

Hang on a sec - what about the scene after escaping Shelob? Frodo knows Gollum set him up, but STILL showed mercy and pity to him here.

As some peole may know from my posts, my view is that Frodo's Mercy towards Gollum saves Middle-earth and is THE main message / point of the story. And Jackson shows some savvy here of this view by adding in this scene showing Frodo's mercy towards Gollum........

[doug*platypus]

But I thought that in the current scene, Frodo mainly shows revulsion towards Gollum, whereas in the book, as Guinevere has pointed out, he was showing great kindness in trying to get Gollum to eat lembas.

The Dead Marshes looked great, although it was obvious that they were either CG in long shots or sets in close ups. I guess that the burning swamp gas was put in to make the place seem even more formidable, or possibly as an explanation for the tricksy lights. Frodo "falling" into the water, and the spirits coming to take him, was a pure horror moment. Good stuff. The wraiths on wings were nice n scary.

The mysterious White Wizard was at first Christopher Lee's voice, then if memory serves it was Ian McKellen attempting to sound like Lee, then finally McKellen's voice. I think this voice morphing was a bit misguided, personally. I mean, it's hardly realistic, and why bother continuing to play games with the audience? We've already had some ambiguity over which wizard is appearing; there's no need to hammer it home so hard.

Gandalf's recollection of the final moments of his battle with the Balrog was cool. I wonder how it would have played out if the opening scene had been viewed here instead? Slower start to the movie, I guess. The fall worked well where it was, drawing us in to the action immediately. I really liked Gandalf's trippy voyage into the world beyond. Very nicely done.

I thought that Shadowfax's introduction was a bit too much like a shampoo commercial. I would have loved it if he had been a grey or silver coloured horse, as in the book, but I guess that a white horse for Gandalf the White is suitable.