LotR1-FotR-Seq01

[drigel]

I do like the prologue. Blanchettes voice using Treebeard's lines was good for me. A good introduction that in ME there are creatures, like elves, among others, that are undying, and can feel the passage of time in the air the water the stones, etc. It also sets the thing up like- "here in this early time, Im already feeling so old... " nice.

I too go back to the 1st cinema impression with the prologue. Also, it reminds me of that 1st cinema experience for that first Star Trek movie. That feeling of- Finally, the long wait is over- its here!!! PJ also sets up the anxiety ridden Tolkien geek as well as the nonTolkien movie goer. Kind of shows that the Tolkien geeks can rest easy for the rest of the film, as the sweeping grandeur of the works will not be ignored, or the interpretation wont be half hearted.

I know that PJ cant spend a prologue explaining the characters: "here is Elendil and GilGalad. Elrond is GilGalad's standard bearer and Isildur and Anarion are Elendil's sons"..... but the whole chopping off the fingerS of Sauron by Isildur seemed weak to me. Like, if it werent for the accidental chopping off of S's fingerS, all would have been a disaster. To me, the dramatics were already there: It was over, at that point. After a seven year seige, the forces of good won. Sauron came down after this fact was woefully obvious, and did battle with Elendil and GilGalad. Death came to all three. Isildur cut the ring off of the broken body of the defeated Sauron, and disregarding the advice from Elrond, kept it for himself. Seems that the plot line of how all things seemed to look wonderfull at the absolute victory of the war, except for one small thing.... could have worked out well there.

[mormegil]

There is one major drawback to the way you just described drigel and that would be time. I can't imagine showing the last alliance winning the day and then Sauron coming forth, the fight to the death and Isildur finally cutting off the ring. That would have taken at least 10 to 15 minutes to do. Plus you would alienate a huge audience with such a large battle at the beginning. I think it was well done in that it showed how powerful Sauron was/is and that without his ring his power is lessened. That is the main point we need from this and it was well done for the time allotted.

[drigel]

Yea I agree mormegil! Sadly, I still get peeved at the notion that the plot line implies that the fingerS chop and Sauron's demise was an accidental occurence.

ill get over it

[Boromir88]

I wanted to point out something that Essex said...

Does Tolkien say he removed his armour? No. Does he say he leaped into the water? Yes Does Jackson follow this to the letter? Yes.

If you look at this film shot, it appears Jackson depicts it exactly as that. Isildur jumps in the water and is probably shot while doing it, or in the water?



I love this picture-shot, and I think it depicts what Tolkien describes. Isildur
jumped into the water after the Ring, and the orcs shot him then...

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I wanted to point out something that Essex said...

If you look at this film shot, it appears Jackson depicts it exactly as that. Isildur jumps in the water and is probably shot while doing it, or in the water?



I love this picture-shot, and I think it depicts what Tolkien describes. Isildur
jumped into the water after the Ring, and the orcs shot him then...

Sorry, but your link didn't work for me. Anyway, that must be an omen, as I would still disagree. I would not say that "Isildur jumped into the water after the Ring," as this implies that the Ring hits the water first, and he goes in after it. In the movie Isildur intends on going into the water. The Ring falls off when he's swimming (probably the need to open/cup his hand so that he could stay afloat with all of that armor...).

To me, in the books, it would be that Isildur's men would fight a rear-guard action while allowing him to escape with his squires. The men are overrun, and the pursuit begins. Isildur could have fled invisibly, sending his squires in another direction to lead the orcs awry, yet it seems to me that he stayed with them as long as he could. It even may have been that he, nobly, thought that he could stay the pursuit using the Ring while his squires got away safely. He sends his useless sword away. The orcs, seeing the King, chase after him instead. Maybe the Ring had pumped up his ego a bit, but maybe he thought to be able to get away.

But at the river his plan goes wrong.

Anyway, short reply is that I still think that the scene doesn't portray the account from the books. Yes, there is "Ring," "Isildur" and "water," but I think that the rest of the words are completely different.

[Mister Underhill]

The LotR account is about as compressed as you can get and does give the bare facts -- and is not contradicted by the film.

In UT, Isildur sends the squire(s) away early. When he leaves, it's only after the battle is truly lost. Anyway, in that account, he's swept back downriver towards the Gladden Fields he had so lately escaped, but he actually gains the western shore -- after having lost the Ring near its banks -- and is shot by orcs patrolling the far side.

[The Saucepan Man]

OK, there are quite a few differences between film and book identified even in just this opening sequence. For me, however, the main interest lies not in the fact that the differences exist but in their impact on the story told by the film.

Do they matter in the context of the film?

Do they set up a logical inconsistency or improbability (eg Isildur running into the water with full armour)?

If so, are they explicable (eg the foolishness of Sauron reaching for Isildur as an aspect of the arrogance that ultimately proves to be his downfall)?

If not, are they likely to be noticed by, or detract from the experience of, the audience as a whole, as opposed to purely book fans (eg does it really matter that Sauron loses a few fingers rather than just one)?

Are the changes merely a consequence of the need to attenuate the story or is it possible that they are a product of themes that Jackson wished to develop (eg the somewhat unsympathetic portrayal of Isildur as an aspect of the weakness of Men, setting up Aragorn's "you are Isildur's heir, not Isildur himself" theme)?

These are the kinds of questions that I think that we should be exploring when looking at the changes from book to film.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

I would rather PJ and friends hadn't been overobsessed with "story
arcs" in the theme of the weakness of men/Aragorn and kept more to
the more interesting book Aragorn, who is steadfast in his beliefs despite
the long odds of success. But in the movie's context SPM is quite correct.

I do appreciate PJ's keeping true to the subtle LOTR allusions to Eru's and/or the Valar's interventions in the story (in the prologue the "But something then happened that the Ring did not intend"), and the later Gandalf comment in Moria. Although I do wonder what non-book people made of such observations.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

These are the kinds of questions that I think that we should be exploring when looking at the changes from book to film.

Nice post, SpM, as it summarizes some of the issues with our first sequence.

Think that my problem (one of many ) is that I cannot recapture that feeling that I had when I first saw FotR. I remember going, as my wife and I see about one movie a year (we rarely go anywhere without our small tribe), but not much detail. Can remember watching Galadriel in Lothlorien and thinking, "we can't be nearing the end of the movie, as I've only been sitting here for 15 minutes - 30 tops!"

And so my analysis is tainted as I've viewed FotR:EE countless times even before I started here at the SbS. I can only speculate how the de-fingering of Sauron was perceived that first time.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by SPM

For me, however, the main interest lies not in the fact that the differences exist but in their impact on the story told by the film.

Nice moderating work, Sauce -- great points in directing the conversation in a constructive direction.

I've already noted the stylized things that bother me a bit here, and will bother me more later down the (plot)line. As an example, I think Sauron's reach could have been executed in a way that was more believable (he's reaching out of arrogance... okay... but what's he reaching for?) and closer to the books, while still remaining short and to the point. I dashed this off in two seconds, but you get the idea:

				 GALADRIEL (V.O.)
		  But the power of the Ring could not 
		  be undone. 
 
SAURON swings his mace.  Warriors fly.
 
ISILDUR is knocked down.  His sword clatters out of his grasp. 
 
SAURON swings again.  GIL-GALAD ducks under flying bodies 
and drives Aeglos between the iron plates of Sauron's armor.
SAURON bats him away.
 
ELENDIL attacks from the other flank, but his sword shatters 
when it meets Sauron's mace.  Sauron crushes Elendil with a 
blow that flings him like a rag doll. 
 
THE SHARD OF NARSIL cartwheels through the air and sticks in 
the mud near Isildur.
 
				 GALADRIEL (V.O.)
		  It was in that moment, when all hope 
		  had faded, that Isildur, son of the 
		  king, took up his father's sword.
 
SAURON reaches for the crown on Elendil's bloody head--
 
With a cry, ISILDUR swings the broken blade of Narsil, severing Sauron's 
fingers--
 
The ONE RING flies from his body.
 
[etc.]

This take would be roughly as brief, maybe adding two or three shots, and would at least motivate Sauron's reach.