LotR1-FotR-Seq05

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by Essex

But, and most importantly of all, the Quest would have failed totally if they did not go through the old forest and meet bombadil. I've mentioned this umpteen times on bombadil threads, but if Merry hadn't got his numenorean sword to help slay the witch king, then Game Over for Middle-earth. (domino effect)

A safe assumption here is that the sword given to Merry is of Numenorean decent.

I really don't see Bombadil as a necissary character for the movies. He seems to be confusing enough to many of the people who read the books let alone adding such an enigma to the movie. The Fellowship is the one movie where time was pressing enough that parts couldn't be sacrificed to make room for Bombadil. Plus, he's not really a pivotal character. The movie story is much more cohesive without him. I would like to have seen the hobbits travelling through the old forest then coming to the main road to enter Bree, like I said earlier, this would have shown some time passing and given an idea of distance. But to include Tom would just convolute the story and confuse too many viewers.

[Lalwendë]

One of my favourite parts in the books was the appearance of Aragorn. I remember reading it and thinking "ooh, who's this strange man then?" ...and a lifetime of 'gorn fandom was born. So i was excited as to how they would introduce him in the film. I have to say that I did like the way they achieved this - and they made nice use of the tobacco in his pipe glowing red, contained within...a ring. Though something I've always been fascinated by was missing, the entrance of the dark figure who slips over the gate.

I liked the look of Bree in the sequence, but I was disappointed that they laid on the sinister aspect with a shovel, as I've always thought of Bree to be an extremely friendly place, just with some odd customers at the pub. I noted that there were no other Hobbits in the pub either.

I did laugh watching it on freeze frame as it appears Isildur is walking down the street hidden under one of those cloaks. Is it Aragorn? And is he standing at the bar smoking when the Hobbits walk in?

As for the dropping of Frodo's song and the real reason he ended up wearing the ring, I have to admit I'm disappointed but not at all surprised. In general, Frodo in the films is played as 'intense Frodo', and his one moment of silliness looks very silly, his dancing at Bilbo's party. We know that Frodo was a light hearted and lovable Hobbit, with dreams, but not a permanent look of a 'rabbit caught in headlights' - he could have fun just as much as any other Hobbit. Here we get a Frodo who does not have much fun; all the instances of fun causing trouble seem to go to Pippin.

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I liked the look of Bree in the sequence, but I was disappointed that they laid on the sinister aspect with a shovel, as I've always thought of Bree to be an extremely friendly place, just with some odd customers at the pub. I noted that there were no other Hobbits in the pub either.

Agreed, Bree is made out to be rather unfriendly but I believe it to be an attempt to show yet again what trouble our band of 4 little hobbits are in. They have now left the cozy, and very green and peaceful Shire, and entered the big mean world that is far from the Shire and nowhere near as desirable. I'm not sure that making Bree this way is the best way to go or not. I would have liked to see a little bit warmer side of Bree. It's one of those havens that the hobbits find in the wilderness that can offer some protection. While not a Rivendell or Lothlorien, it is a little bastion of civility in which they find good food and shelter. This would have been another reason why they should have a brief segment of the 4 hobbits alone travelling through the forest. To show their plight, with a brief respite then back into peril in the wilderness.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

The appearance of the Black Rider is terrific, till Merry tosses the veggies -- just a tad unbelievable for my tastes, and my extensive knowledge of the inner working of Nazgul minds.

Love the Howard Shore score throughout this scene. Not sure that I like Merry and Pippin's dumbing down, but it is almost the sole source of comic relief in this film, plus they do grow spiritually in TT and ROTK, so all in all I'm not mad at PJ.

Bree is significantly more menacing and forboding than in the books. No hobbits to be seen besides our fearsome foursome (the only indication that there are any hobbits in Bree comes with the two peepholes at the gate), it's pouring down rain, everyone seems to be wearing black clothing, and PJ's belching in your face as you walk down the street. Yep, sounds like a jolly place. But I guess it serves its purpose in the film.

Strider was awesome. That was THE moment, first watching the film, when I thought, "This is going to be awesome." They absolutely nailed his first appearance. I took one look and was like, "Now THAT is Aragorn son of Arathorn, Elessar Telcontar, Envinyatar the Renewer, Estel the Hope of the Dunedain, Captain of the Rangers of the North, Heir of Isildur, etc., etc."

The setting out on the next stage of the Quest is rather abrupt -- the long drawn-out conversation and argument from the book, where Frodo finally decides to trust Strider, is completely absent. Apparently, we're going with this foul-looking dude because he knows something about them black horse-riding thingies, and oh yeah, because a spy of the Enemy would look fairer and feel fouler. Frodo said it in the book, so it must apply to this dude.

And I thought the Lay of Leithian quote was a cool touch. I think they do a fantastic job with Elvish in the movies!

[Mister Underhill]

Woozy Elijah
I was surprised to see them go this extreme this soon with the whole "the Ring is controlling me!", eyes rolling back bit. To me, it's the least interesting interpretation possible, and going this far with it so early on leaves Elijah without anywhere to go later as the Ring's power waxes in Mordor. davem's excellent comments about the nature of evil in Tolkien in the Sequence 4 thread are still appropriate here: in Jackson's adaptation, the Ring is something that just takes over your mind, it's an overpowering outside force. Frodo never seems to have any real choice in the matter, which wipes out the complex ambiguity and psychological depth of how the Ring works in the books.

Now I know this is a movie here and we're not gonna get all of that complexity and subtlety in, but I would have liked at least a suggestion of it. Ironically, the screenplay is closer to what I would have liked to have seen -- when the Nazgûl is thrown off track by the mushrooms Merry hurls, "Frodo is staring, a look of shock on his face at the ring lying in the palm of his hand."


Bombadil
I can hardly imagine Bombadil in PJ's hands -- he'd have the Master belching loudly at dinner with Goldberry and dribbling mead down his face from a giant dribble-mug, no doubt. Let's face it, Bombadil would be tough to put on film in anyone's hands. Keeping that in mind, and sticking with the theme of abridgement over compression, the decision to cut Bombadil, the Barrow-downs, the Old Forest, and even poor Fatty Bolger is one that I can fully get behind, much as I would have liked to have seen the Barrow-wight his ownself running rampant on the Downs.

I don't have much trouble with the idea that the blades Aragorn gives to the hobbits are of Numenorean descent, and in any case the bit about Merry and the Witch-king and the Numenorean-charmed blade isn't even brought out in the films.

Although Bombadil does add some nice thematic depth to the Ring's story, I wouldn't say it's crucial; or at least I'd say there are a lot of other higher-priority Ring themes which I think might have been fixed before I ever got down the list to old Tom.


Timeline Issues
Here's one that bothers me: the scene about second breakfast (elevenses, luncheon, etc.). As a bit of comic relief I don't mind it, it's when it happens that bugs me, namely, at the end of a travel montage which looks like it lasts many days. Wouldn't they know that Strider doesn't pause every two hours for a meal within, well, two hours of leaving Bree? I'm laughing at that scene at the beginning of the montage; at the end, where it is, I'm sort of annoyed at the lack of attention to detail.

Also, it's worth noting how easily the impression of the passage of time and a lengthy journey is created. This harks back to the problems with the Gandalf travel sequence discussed in the Sequence 3 thread.


Nazgûl
I also dislike the way the Black Rider is so easily thrown off the scent by Merry's tossed pack. I wonder how the placement of the Wood Elves' approach to drive off the Rider, as occurs in the book, would have affected the sequence.

I don't think too much should be made of Nazgûl "blindness" in excusing the way these scenes are staged. Aragorn's explanation of their abilities near Weathertop in Book 1, Chapter 11 makes them out to be pretty capable customers, especially at night, even if they "do not see the world of light as we do".

Besides, the idea of Nazgûl "blindness" is not brought out at all in the films, and non-book audiences have no way of knowing anything about such an idea.


Bree
I agree with those who thought that they laid it on rather thick in Bree. An interesting consequence of making the Pony and all its patrons so threatening is that Strider hardly seems menacing. When Butterbur says his line about how "them Rangers are dangerous folk", I was thinking, Barley, just take a look around the bar! That quiet Ranger in the corner is the least of your worries.

[Essex]

Mr Underhill (and others) your point:

I also dislike the way the Black Rider is so easily thrown off the scent by Merry's tossed pack. I wonder how the placement of the Wood Elves' approach to drive off the Rider, as occurs in the book, would have affected the sequence.

I don't think too much should be made of Nazgûl "blindness" in excusing the way these scenes are staged. Aragorn's explanation of their abilities near Weathertop in Book 1, Chapter 11 makes them out to be pretty capable customers, especially at night, even if they "do not see the world of light as we do".

I can't win with you guys. I try to find reasons for things happening in the film from the text, and it still gets brushed aside. The sequence took place during the DAY, and the nazgul do not see the world of light as we do. So if they can't see properly, why not a diversion using Sound? And I'm not bothered whether people who haven't read the books get it or not, it's for book readers to understand the point.

re Merry picking up a numenorean sword from Aragorn (and the film tie in book says he killed the WK with Theoden's sword he had as a child - stupid!)
It's not just a case of saying, ah well the sword aragorn gave him was numenorean. It's as much about the JOURNEY the hobbits take and what they encounter. It's just as important to say how something was found/given. Let's just change the plot to show Aragorn picking up a blade from the side of the road that was Narsil - let's not bother about the history of the blade and it's significance - that's what we are doing here with Merry's blade.

But the one thing I do agree with you guys on is the power of the Ring is TOO MUCH. This just does not work for me. Without bombadil, we are neglecting to show that the power of the Ring is not all over powering. Bombadil can wear it without being affected, and can see Frodo when he wears it - it shows us that Evil cannot totally prevail - but becasue PJ and the scriptwriters have made the ring too powerful, we are not allowed to see this.

Lalwende: re

As for the dropping of Frodo's song and the real reason he ended up wearing the ring, I have to admit I'm disappointed but not at all surprised. In general, Frodo in the films is played as 'intense Frodo', and his one moment of silliness looks very silly, his dancing at Bilbo's party. We know that Frodo was a light hearted and lovable Hobbit, with dreams, but not a permanent look of a 'rabbit caught in headlights' - he could have fun just as much as any other Hobbit. Here we get a Frodo who does not have much fun; all the instances of fun causing trouble seem to go to Pippin.

In the book, Frodo does not sing the song 'for fun' - he does it as a diversion to stop Pippin giving the game away - He slips, falls, and the ring myseteriously ends on his finger - In other words, except for the song, it is pretty much the same as the book - It wasn't about Frodo having fun, it's about stopping Pippin putting his foot in it.

[Boromir88]

But the one thing I do agree with you guys on is the power of the Ring is TOO MUCH. This just does not work for me. Without bombadil, we are neglecting to show that the power of the Ring is not all over powering. Bombadil can wear it without being affected, and can see Frodo when he wears it - it shows us that Evil cannot totally prevail - but becasue PJ and the scriptwriters have made the ring too powerful, we are not allowed to see this.

I disagree. I don't think Jackson really heightens the power of the ring at all. We do get a several cases (in the movies when the ring's temptation is actually resisted).

Bilbo- giving it up at Bag End
Gandalf- "Don't tempt me Frodo!"
Boromir- On Caradhras= "Give the Ring to Frodo."
Galadriel- "I passed the test."
Faramir- Letting Frodo go. Though he does initially fall, I will argue at the proper time that he was more influenced by his Father than by the Ring.
Sam- Gives Frodo the Ring back in Cirith Ungol

Also, later, what a surprise...I'm going to compare Sam and Boromir as Jackson makes a connection with them and pairs them together throughout the movies.

But, back on track. So, we do have a several instances where the Ring is actually resisted. Though I think it appears that Jackson shows the Ring affecting Frodo (and Boromir too) earlier than I found in the books, I think there are several cases that show the Ring can be resisted and isn't this all-powerful, corrupts everyone force.

[Essex]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I disagree. I don't think Jackson really heightens the power of the ring at all. We do get a several cases (in the movies when the ring's temptation is actually resisted).

Bilbo- giving it up at Bag End
Gandalf- "Don't tempt me Frodo!"
Boromir- On Caradhras= "Give the Ring to Frodo."
Galadriel- "I passed the test."
Faramir- Letting Frodo go. Though he does initially fall, I will argue at the proper time that he was more influenced by his Father than by the Ring.
Sam- Gives Frodo the Ring back in Cirith Ungol

Though I think it appears that Jackson shows the Ring affecting Frodo (and Boromir too) earlier than I found in the books, I think there are several cases that show the Ring can be resisted and isn't this all-powerful, corrupts everyone force.

Yes, and if you didn't have most of the above in the movie then you wouldn't have Lord of the Rings! What I mean is that as soon as Frodo puts the Ring on we have an all encompasing force 'seing' him 'I can see you' etc. The only time this is valid (and works well) is when Frodo sits on the seat of seeing, as in the book.

What I mean about it's strength is that as soon as the wearer puts it on (except for bilbo but there you go, it gives us an inconsistency) we have the eye of sauron on top of them. This means that NO WAY can Sam wear the Ring near Cirith Ungol (as Frodo says pretty much to him that they can't wear it anymore in hennuth anun) - so therefore, Sam wasn't a Ring Bearer and didn't follow Frodo in to the West (the Last 'movie' Boat had gone anyway!)

This is what I'm trying to get at, that movie wise the Ring and Sauron's connection to it is too strong, leading us to incosistencies and changes further down the line. And along with Tom, we see someone who doesn't even need to fight temptation - he just puts it on and isn;t effected by it! It also shows us there are simillar (or greater) forces on Middle-earth as well as Sauron, and this would have been great to see in the movie, whether it moved the story along or not.

PS It's funny how us posters with different views on the movies can use the 'move the story along' excuse for both our 'causes'.

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by Essex

re Merry picking up a numenorean sword from Aragorn (and the film tie in book says he killed the WK with Theoden's sword he had as a child - stupid!)
It's not just a case of saying, ah well the sword aragorn gave him was numenorean. It's as much about the JOURNEY the hobbits take and what they encounter. It's just as important to say how something was found/given. Let's just change the plot to show Aragorn picking up a blade from the side of the road that was Narsil - let's not bother about the history of the blade and it's significance - that's what we are doing here with Merry's blade.

In the film I don't see why knowing the history of Merry's sword is important. It seems a minor detail in a sea of information. If we were to explain that it is of Westernese decent who would do it? How long would it take? Would it be more confusing than it is worth? Those are facts and details that make the book wonderful but would just be too much for a cinematic audience to handle, meaning that you need to stick with the core story and small details get left by the wayside. That's the way of it here.

Originally Posted by Essex

Lalwende: re In the book, Frodo does not sing the song 'for fun' - he does it as a diversion to stop Pippin giving the game away - He slips, falls, and the ring myseteriously ends on his finger - In other words, except for the song, it is pretty much the same as the book - It wasn't about Frodo having fun, it's about stopping Pippin putting his foot in it.

Ah, but he does sing the song the second time for fun.

It was now Frodo's turn to feel pleased with himself. He capered about on the table; and when he came a second time to the cow jumped over the Moon, he leaped in the air. Much too vigorously; for he came down, bang, into a tray full of mugs, and slipped and rolled off the table with a crash, clatter, and bump!

So Frodo initially sang to save Pippin from making a mistake but he had so much fun in doing it that he foolishly did it again.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Essex

I can't win with you guys. I try to find reasons for things happening in the film from the text, and it still gets brushed aside. The sequence took place during the DAY, and the nazgul do not see the world of light as we do. So if they can't see properly, why not a diversion using Sound? And I'm not bothered whether people who haven't read the books get it or not, it's for book readers to understand the point.

Starting posting to this thought, then got pulled into the "Is Eru God?" thread.

Anyway, let's back away for a moment and consider what we're doing here. We're watching sets of scenes (actually the entire movie in smaller bites) of the Peter Jackson film interpretation of JRRT's LotR, then discussing our thoughts, impressions, likes, dislikes, etc. To me part of the 'task,' if it can be thought of as such, is to get into the mind of PJ et al and see why they created the movies that they did. They assumedly read for the same books that you and I have read. I have my interpretatons of them; others see them vastly different in some instances. Likewise these movies.

But what I'm trying to fish out is the mindset, the game plan, the playbook.

Each frame in this movie is here for a reason. Each thing from the books that isn't here was removed for a reason. These reasons could be:

• cost

• pacing

• different interpretation

• different understanding/lack of understanding

• fans

• general audience

• shock

• accident/error

• etc..

For example, as stated almost ad nauseum by me, I was uncomfortable with Gandalf sneaking up and grabbing Frodo. Who cares? No one, even me, ran out of the theater at that moment saying, "I want my money back!" Really, I don't even care that much. But what I deduced from that was that the PJ team would sacrifice character for thrill.

Okay, that's his way of doing things, and so we might see it again.

Another example is the Eye. PJ wanted Sauron as the Eye introduced early in FotR and so we get the scene in Bree. Again I wasn't writing letters addressed to New Zealand after seeing the Eye, but what I think that we deduced was that PJ is more concerned with keeping Sauron in the picture than with logic. Note: if this hasn't already been stated, the appearance of the Eye is between Saruman bookends. "The White Wizard isn't the only baddie here, don't forget!"

And my last example is the Nazgul chase. First, the Nazgul is easily distracted. Next, the wraith on horse cannot harm any of the four Hobbits (even with a harsh word like "He-Hobbit!" ). So to me the result is watered down Nazgul, and we'll see why that this (assumedly) was decided when we get to Weathertop.

Anyway, I'm guessing that the above makes sense only to me, and when I read this tomorrow even I won't know what I was trying to say. But in short, I'm enjoying the SbS and all (yes, all) of your thoughts immensely, and I look forward each week to writing each new thread (EDIT) and reading your posts.

EDIT: Knew that the brain would kick in today. Anyway, thought to add that all of the reasons/considerations listed above had to be weighed against the others to determine the best for the film - not just for PJ, not just for us fans, but the best for ...well...I'm not really sure.

For example, assume that PJ had considered putting Tom Bombadil into FotR, or even FotR:EE. Surely he would have delighted the "tommaniacs," but might have put off not only other less interested viewers but also those amongst his own staff who were frantic just trying to get the reduced version out of the door ("Just how does he expected us to include this character when we cannot distill Tom's character into one word?"). And why would he add a character who gets his own scene when this same character does not 'come back' in the end, even in the books?

So, PJ might have thought that Tom just wasn't worth the headaches, resources, etc. In this instance he and I would agree.

[Lathriel]

I think I know what you are trying to say, alatar. It all makes sense to me and I think it would be silly if I wrote to producers because I didn't like the way the eye was portrayed.
Although, I didn't think they had to get the eye in the scene at Bree I do see that they have to introduce the true enemy sometime. Maybe they should have waited till Amon Hen but at that time people might already have forgotten about Sauron. I'm simply speculating but that is what makes these threads funfor me. I just like to speculate on the reason why PJ did certain things or not.