LotR1-FotR-Seq01 - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Essex · 11-02-2005, 03:42 AM

I think we also need to keep in mind the 'fluidity' of Tolkien's back story to LOTR. Inasmuch as, we have a 'concrete' version of LOTR to read (and yes I know there have been some slight changes to the text throughout the years in different versions) - but we don't have this when we look at his other work. As Christopher Tolkien states, there are different versions to his back story, and finding the 'correct' version is hard at times.

We have different stories around Isildur - From Unfinished tales, Silmarillion, and Gandalf's account in LOTR - which all seem to give a different slant to the story. And at times a CONFLICTING slant to the story.

doug*platypus · 11-13-2006, 02:53 AM

Fwoof! The sound of a lost little platy blowing dust off this ole thread...

When I first heard the rumour that PJ was filming a Second Age prologue to the trilogy, I was on location as an Orc extra on the volcanic plateau of the central North Island. I was excited, to say the very least! I was practically drooling with anticipation!

When I finally viewed the prologue years after, I did not feel at all let down. Although I didn't feel too much for the Men of the Last Alliance, I was blown away by the work that Richard Taylor and co did on the Elven armour, weapons and fighting techniques. And I thought that Sauron looked fantastic, especially with his great attacking prowess, batting incarnates out of the way like the powerful fallen Maia he was!

Cate Blanchett's voiceover was enchanting! Particularly lines such as "It abandoned Gollum" or "who above all else, desire power". Her inflection, timing and pitch were just heavenly. In an ideal world, I would have Cate Blanchett read me LOTR, a couple of chapters at each sitting, at bedtime every night!

BUT... (and this is a big butt... sorry I mean but)... however nice the prologue is, I agree with Reg that it is not necessary, and in fact detracts from the story as I would have liked to have seen it. I much prefer the way the book reveals the background story, one piece at a time, as the story dictates that we need to know it. The mystery behind the origins of Bilbo's magic ring is completely destroyed, and when Gandalf makes the "final test" and discovers that it is the One, the audience is left saying "well, duh, we already knew that". I like the way that in the book we largely see events through the eyes of the hobbits (similar to the original Star Wars trilogy, which is told mainly from the droids' perspective), and I don't like the fact that the audience should know so much before the actual players do.

I have similar gripes throughout the FOTR movie, as a matter of fact. As an example, the Black Riders were revealed as servants of the Dark Lord when we see them issuing from "baddie central", whereas in the book their origins are ambiguous until Frodo finds out more information. I'll leave my non-prologue gripes there for the time being; plenty of time to discuss them in the other sequence discussions.

I thought that Sauron's reaching for Isildur was ridiculous, and I daresay I would have felt the same whether I was a lover of the book or not. It just doesn't make sense. He has had such success with battering people a la mace... why change now? What is so special about Isildur that Sauron wants to just pick him up? Is he cute and cuddly like Tickle Me Elmo?! No!

Let me say that I am not entirely opposed to changes from the book. But like Gaffer Gamgee (or is it Barliman Butterbur?), I can't abide "changes for the worst". IMHO, the book version of Sauron's demise at the hands of the two greatest heroes of the Second Age leading the overwhelming armies of the Last Alliance is endlessly more plausible than the movie version. I think PJ would have been better off sticking to the material as written, even if he only gets to show Isildur cutting the Ring from Sauron's dead hand. Here endeth the prologue gripe.

alatar · 05-27-2008, 09:31 AM

This thought is late in coming, but I was wondering why the forces of the Last Alliance didn't pepper Sauron - still with lidded eyes (and fingers, toes, legs, head, etc) - with a bunch of arrows. To me it would have been an easy way for Jackson to show that Sauron would have turned the battle, as we could watched the elven arrows harmlessly ricochet and/or break when they struck the Dark Lord. The audience could see that this new foe upon the battle field would be something different, and trouble, and only by losing the Ring could he be hindered.

Groin Redbeard · 05-27-2008, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alatar

This thought is late in coming, but I was wondering why the forces of the Last Alliance didn't pepper Sauron - still with lidded eyes (and fingers, toes, legs, head, etc) - with a bunch of arrows. To me it would have been an easy way for Jackson to show that Sauron would have turned the battle, as we could watched the elven arrows harmlessly ricochet and/or break when they struck the Dark Lord. The audience could see that this new foe upon the battle field would be something different, and trouble, and only by losing the Ring could he be hindered.

I think that PJ really wanted to show us how fearsome and unstoppable Sauron really was by having him hack his way through the foot soldiers. Still, your idea would be cool to watch! Though I do have to admit that facing a nine foot tall dark lord would be enough to strike fear into anyones heart! I doubt that anyone could have the courage to actually go against him.

Also, if you look at the movie the archers were near the rear of the army while the swordsmen, spearman, ext. were in the front when Sauron appeared. I don't think that the archers would want to fire into the midst of their own men, especially since their leaders, Gil-Galad and Elendil, were right near Sauron.

alatar · 05-27-2008, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

I think that PJ really wanted to show us how fearsome and unstoppable Sauron really was by having him hack his way through the foot soldiers. Still, your idea would be cool to watch! Though I do have to admit that facing a nine foot tall dark lord would be enough to strike fear into anyones heart! I doubt that anyone could have the courage to actually go against him.

I'd finally gotten round to watching '300' and noted that King Leonidas's last act was to scratch Xerxes, showing to all that Xerxes wasn't a god (And, another movie quote, from Predator, "If it bleeds, we can kill it."). Xerxes too was larger than life, and yet that one scratch...

Quote:

Also, if you look at the movie the archers were near the rear of the army while the swordsmen, spearman, ext. were in the front when Sauron appeared. I don't think that the archers would want to fire into the midst of their own men, especially since their leaders, Gil-Galad and Elendil, were right near Sauron.

These same archers shoot just over Elrond's head (even messing his hair, which can be fatal to elves (Thanks Mith!)), and so I don't see why they couldn't have targeted Sauron, who, as you note, was larger than those that stood close by.

I just thought that it would have been an easy way to show that this was no ordinary giant creature we were dealing with.

11-13-2006, 02:53 AM	#2
doug*platypus Delver in the Deep Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 960	Fwoof! The sound of a lost little platy blowing dust off this ole thread... When I first heard the rumour that PJ was filming a Second Age prologue to the trilogy, I was on location as an Orc extra on the volcanic plateau of the central North Island. I was excited, to say the very least! I was practically drooling with anticipation! When I finally viewed the prologue years after, I did not feel at all let down. Although I didn't feel too much for the Men of the Last Alliance, I was blown away by the work that Richard Taylor and co did on the Elven armour, weapons and fighting techniques. And I thought that Sauron looked fantastic, especially with his great attacking prowess, batting incarnates out of the way like the powerful fallen Maia he was! Cate Blanchett's voiceover was enchanting! Particularly lines such as "It abandoned Gollum" or "who above all else, desire power". Her inflection, timing and pitch were just heavenly. In an ideal world, I would have Cate Blanchett read me LOTR, a couple of chapters at each sitting, at bedtime every night! BUT... (and this is a big butt... sorry I mean but)... however nice the prologue is, I agree with Reg that it is not necessary, and in fact detracts from the story as I would have liked to have seen it. I much prefer the way the book reveals the background story, one piece at a time, as the story dictates that we need to know it. The mystery behind the origins of Bilbo's magic ring is completely destroyed, and when Gandalf makes the "final test" and discovers that it is the One, the audience is left saying "well, duh, we already knew that". I like the way that in the book we largely see events through the eyes of the hobbits (similar to the original Star Wars trilogy, which is told mainly from the droids' perspective), and I don't like the fact that the audience should know so much before the actual players do. I have similar gripes throughout the FOTR movie, as a matter of fact. As an example, the Black Riders were revealed as servants of the Dark Lord when we see them issuing from "baddie central", whereas in the book their origins are ambiguous until Frodo finds out more information. I'll leave my non-prologue gripes there for the time being; plenty of time to discuss them in the other sequence discussions. I thought that Sauron's reaching for Isildur was ridiculous, and I daresay I would have felt the same whether I was a lover of the book or not. It just doesn't make sense. He has had such success with battering people a la mace... why change now? What is so special about Isildur that Sauron wants to just pick him up? Is he cute and cuddly like Tickle Me Elmo?! No! Let me say that I am not entirely opposed to changes from the book. But like Gaffer Gamgee (or is it Barliman Butterbur?), I can't abide "changes for the worst". IMHO, the book version of Sauron's demise at the hands of the two greatest heroes of the Second Age leading the overwhelming armies of the Last Alliance is endlessly more plausible than the movie version. I think PJ would have been better off sticking to the material as written, even if he only gets to show Isildur cutting the Ring from Sauron's dead hand. Here endeth the prologue gripe. __________________ But Gwindor answered: 'The doom lies in yourself, not in your name'.

05-27-2008, 09:31 AM	#3
alatar Doubting Dwimmerlaik Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Heaven's basement Posts: 2,466	This thought is late in coming, but I was wondering why the forces of the Last Alliance didn't pepper Sauron - still with lidded eyes (and fingers, toes, legs, head, etc) - with a bunch of arrows. To me it would have been an easy way for Jackson to show that Sauron would have turned the battle, as we could watched the elven arrows harmlessly ricochet and/or break when they struck the Dark Lord. The audience could see that this new foe upon the battle field would be something different, and trouble, and only by losing the Ring could he be hindered. __________________ There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.

11-02-2005, 03:42 AM	#1
Essex Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Essex, England Posts: 886	I think we also need to keep in mind the 'fluidity' of Tolkien's back story to LOTR. Inasmuch as, we have a 'concrete' version of LOTR to read (and yes I know there have been some slight changes to the text throughout the years in different versions) - but we don't have this when we look at his other work. As Christopher Tolkien states, there are different versions to his back story, and finding the 'correct' version is hard at times. We have different stories around Isildur - From Unfinished tales, Silmarillion, and Gandalf's account in LOTR - which all seem to give a different slant to the story. And at times a CONFLICTING slant to the story.