PJ's Galadriel: a hagging, nagging witch??? [Archive]

Mrs. Maggott

10-21-2002, 03:21 AM

I don't think Galadriel was badly done. After the unbelievable action of Moria and the "death" of Gandalf, Lothlorien was bound to produce an emotional letdown in the viewer.

I rather liked the way Jackson was not afraid to linger on the scene where Celeborn and Galadriel greet the remaining members of the Fellowship. It was unfortunate, however, that Jackson did not allow Celeborn to reject the Fellowship upon learning of the Balrog. If one remembers, <itb>, Celeborn declares that he would not allowed ANY of them to enter Lothlorien had he known about the Balrog and he even criticized Gandalf, saying that, in effect, he had died as the result of his own folly. It is Galadriel who gently chides him by reminding him that none of Gandalf's actions in life were vain. This would also have given the Lady the opportunity to bestow that special greeting to the dwarf which made such a big difference to Gimli in his view of ALL the elves - including Legolas (remember, this was the beginning of their friendship <itb>).

Still, I think Galadriel was presented as a great and good Queen who wielded hidden but potent power. The actress who played her did so with a certain gentle humor without hysteria or melodrama. I thought it well done, but, again, the entire sequence was rushed in that we never got to see the bestowal of the gifts - the cloaks, jeweled leaves etc. - or anything else INCLUDING Sam's rope which was so useful in the Emyn Muil.

Like so much else in the film, it could have been done so much better with the expenditure of just a little of the time that the Director chose to spend on tree crashing and orc breeding.

Talimon

10-21-2002, 08:14 AM

Like so much else in the film, it could have been done so much better with the expenditure of just a little of the time that the Director chose to spend on tree crashing and orc breeding.

Without even arguing as to why it is actually important to show evil (something Tolkien did very effectively, by means literature allow), go time those scenes. They hardly make up enough time for just the gift-giving scene alone, and were they out I think the difference would be much more noticeable. I hate to use the word "depth" regarding Saruman, but I think it fleshed out "evil" to show his war-factories. The trees being cut will tie in with the Ents in TTT, no doubt. The simple answer here is that PJ, in 3 hours, couldn't include everything. Indeed, even in the 3 1/2 hours that the Extended Edition offers he will no doubt have a ton of material left over. The trick here is to make a full, well-rounded movie given your constraints, be they on time, money, or wheather. To me that is the real difference between PJ and Bakshi. Bakshi tried to include as much possible in his fear of Tolkien fans, thus ending up with a movie that has little worth as a movie. PJ had the foresight to realize he will only be able to tell so much in 3 hours, and acted accordingly. In glorious cheesy tradition, "it is what we do with the time that is given to us". PJ was given 3 hours, and he did some truly incredible stuff with it. I commend him.

Mrs. Maggott

10-21-2002, 08:28 AM

I absolutely concur that the Director had to choose what he would show and what not. But many of the things he "left out" in order to "expand" other parts were questionable.

After the Saruman/Gandalf scenes, I don't think anyone had any question about what Saruman was. Long scenes showing quarrying orcs and the felling of many trees were not necessary. And again, many of the things that were left out could at least have been "covered" in dialogue. For instance, there was NO dialogue in the trip down the Anduin. We are never told WHERE the Fellowship is or how they got the boats or anything else. A few minutes before setting out mentioning that the boats were a parting gift from the people of Caras Galadon (together with the other gifts) would have sufficed. It wouldn't have been necessary to go into great detail.

At the same time, it should also have been noted that the Anduin would bring them down to Parth Galen (no mention need be made of the rapids of Sarn Gebir) AT WHICH TIME THE FELLOWSHIP WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER TO FOLLOW BOROMIR WEST TO MINAS TIRITH OR GO EAST TO MORDOR. We have no idea when they reach Parth Galen WHERE they are or that this is a critical moment for the Fellowship because it's CRUNCH TIME...time to decide whether to go West - or East. These are things that are not "window dressing", but essential to the development of the plot - yet the Director pays not attention to them in the finished film and, I believe, the film loses thereby.

Talimon

10-21-2002, 09:01 AM

You are one of those people, Mrs. Maggot, whom I believe will be very happy with the Extended Edition coming out in November. That last paragraph mentions the very scenes that are being added back in (among others). Aragorn arguing with Boromir over which way to go, the gift-giving scene... I hope you enjoy it more then the theatrical version. I'm sure I will, but perhaps for different reasons. I predict that I will love it because it's more of the same movie, while you will love it because it's completely different scenes altogether. That's not to say that I don't recognize what is being added back in (charachter development). It's just that in my opinion, for a fantasy movie, FotR had much more charachter development then any other fantasy movie that has come before it (and so far after :)). I guess this is just the result of me comparing it much more to other movies rather then the actual book. For me the book is something completely different. In other words, I'll enjoy the added charachter development simply because it's charachter development, thus making the movie deeper. Whether this charachter development is from the book or not isn't as important, in my opinion. The fact that it mostly is, however, should please the purists.

Mrs. Maggott

10-21-2002, 02:51 PM

It is true that I have decried Jackson's change in his characters from the author's original intent because I believe those changes - especially in Aragorn - have diminshed the character and therefore, perforce, the story.

That having been said, MOST of my criticisms of the film involve what I perceive to be inconsistencies within the world that JACKSON has created, NOT Jackson's world in comparison to Tolkien's. The Director has made choices (and you KNOW my examples so they need no further explanation here) which either simply do not make sense within his own story or they damage the very "vision" he has attempted to bring to his audience. These things are important and they cannot be "made up for" by exiting battle scenes and grand special effects; they leave "holes" in the plot and thus, in the film.

I will say - yet again - that I thoroughly enjoyed the film! That I intend to enjoy the next two and that I have nothing but praise for Mr. Jackson's efforts and those of the very excellent people with whom he surrounded himself in a noble and worthy effort. My criticisms - which are slight enough given the scope of the project - simply reflect my own disappointment or confusion at those times when the Director did not follow HIS OWN stated intentions for the film(s) (the hobbit character development, for instance) and thereby diminished his excellent efforts. :confused:

Ariana Undomiel

10-22-2002, 03:17 AM

So basically you are upset because Peter Jackson didn't meet your expectations?

~Ariana

Mrs. Maggott

10-22-2002, 12:18 PM

No, I was somewhat disappointed (hardly "upset") because he did not meet his OWN expectations. :confused:

Ariana Undomiel

10-22-2002, 06:26 PM

No, I was somewhat disappointed (hardly "upset") because he did not meet his OWN expectations

And you would know that how?

~Ariana

Mrs. Maggott

10-22-2002, 07:45 PM

Watch the second disk in the August DVD release. You will hear Jackson say that he thought that the development of the relationship among the hobbits WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE FILM! I really don't know how to put it any more clearly.

Since he DID NOT "develop" that relationship in a way that presented what he himself said we should know about the hobbits at the start of the film, I must assume that he failed to live up to his OWN expectations.

However, if you don't believe Mr. Jackson, I really can't help you. :( :rolleyes:

Ariana Undomiel

10-24-2002, 06:33 PM

Ok, it's not that I don't believe PJ, but did he say that the way the hobbit's turned out and their relationships did not meet up to his own expectations? Again, it sounds like they didn't meet up to yours and therefore you assume that they didn't meet up to PJ's. I thought that there was some good relational development between the hobbits. It is scattered throughout the movie, but it is there. The entire scene in hobbiton shows us the characters of the individuals. Merry and Pippin are good young friends with a small habit of making mischief. Sam is a sweet but not very confidant little soul. Frodo is a carefree young hobbit with all the joys of life surrounding him, until the ring takes him a step farther in his maturity level. They are all loyal to one another. I believe the relationships will grow in the next film as Fellowship was just an introduction to what the world will see in the next two films.

~Ariana

Mrs. Maggott

10-24-2002, 06:53 PM

Once the Fellowship begins - even at the time of the attack of the Riders - there will certainly follow a comradarie and loyalty that engenders under such circumstances; a sort of "battlefield" relationship. HOWEVER, in Tolkien's interpretation, Merry and Pippin KNOWING THE DANGER, still choose to accompany Frodo and Sam into danger and exile. That's a far different thing from being swept up into something by accident - which is exactly what happened in the film.

If Jackson had merely established with a little bit of dialogue that all four hobbits were long-time friends and that Sam WORKED for Frodo and therefore had a servant's loyalty to him (whom he CALLS "Master", for heaven's sake!), not only would the following action have made more sense, but the audience would have had a much different - and considerably higher - opinion of at least Merry, Pippin and Sam.

Since this part of the story certainly mattered to the author and the Director also made quite clear that in his eyes it was THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, then one must wonder how it could have been so easily overlooked! :rolleyes: :confused: :rolleyes:

joxy

10-24-2002, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
After the unbelievable action of Moria and the "death" of Gandalf, Lothlorien was bound to produce an emotional letdown in the viewer.
Like so much else in the film, it could have been done so much better with the expenditure of just a little of the time that the Director chose to spend on tree crashing and orc breeding.
"Unbelievable"? What do you mean? Why couldn't you believe it?
I though almost all of Moria was done very well, as believable as anything in a work of fantasy and fiction ever could be!
Or do you mean "remarkable, amazing, impressive, unforgettable"?!

But how right you are about the sad waste of time and money on those silly scenes when so much of value was abandoned.

Mrs. Maggott

10-24-2002, 09:16 PM

I'm sorry. I am becoming sloppy in my usage. I meant "unbelievable" to indicate that it was so amazing as to be, virtually, "unbelievable" - NOT that the action lacked believablility or that I didn't believe it (except, of course, for Frodo being squished by a troll and then sitting up and saying, "I'm not hurt!!).

Naturally, after such gut wrenching stuff (you find that your fingernails have made impressions on either your husband's hand or the arm rest of the seat!), and then when you get to Lothlorien, there must be a certain amount of "let down". It doesn't mean that the scenes aren't good, but it does mean that you aren't racing full-tilt anywhere. I can understand why some younger viewers find that kind of change of pace to be off-putting. Many of them are used to video games where the action is non-stop and something (usually bad) is happening every minute. It takes some getting used to when you find you have to listen, watch, empathize and infer in scenes where the actors are "saying things" to one another with glances, light sweat upon the brow (Boromir under Galadriel's gaze) and a host of other less understated communication. No wonder some very young posters on another site said Lothlorian was BOOOOORRRIIINNNGGG!! To them, I'm sure it was!

joxy

10-24-2002, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by Ariana Undomiel
I thought that there was some good relational development between the hobbits....
Merry and Pippin are good young friends with a small habit of making mischief....
Sam is a sweet but not very confident little soul....
They are all loyal to one another....
I believe the relationships will grow in the next film.
Because they start off with their characters so wrong, it was quite difficult for them to be shown on any sort of relationship to each other, and I don't see much of that in the film.
M&P are shown as if their "small" habit is their ONLY character feature, and "mischief" is a childish habit, not the kind of friendly humour that people would have, who were mature enough to make the serious decision (which of course we are not told about) to join F & S on their journey.
Whatever Sam is he shouldn't be "little". Fortunately he is physically (relatively) big in the film, and when he is allowed to speak or act he does a pretty job of conveying Sam's intelligence and maturity.
Loyalty is on a pretty low level most of the time; it's more like the sort of childish or teenage friendship that appears in "coming-of-age" films.
There ARE hopes though: at the very end they all made a sudden leap from childhood, and the rest of the story should see them in their real form.

Minas

10-26-2002, 09:38 AM

G was not as I had pictured her in my own mind. She was as beautiful, calm, encouraging and deliberate as I expected. I thought the scene of her holding each of the Fellowships gaze was superb (But maybe some of that was done to Boromirs reactions and words with A ragorn later). The scenes seemed to jump for such a relaxed place. ( I KNOW ... WAIT FOR THE EXTENDED VERSION!!!). She was in control of Lothlorien.
Then during her test when Frodo offers the ring I was astounded at her transformation.
Looking at it after the fact I still like her portrayal, she gave the impression of being a great ally for the fellowship and I look forward to seeing her in TRoTK.

aragil

10-28-2002, 10:27 AM

What I really liked about Galadriel (and to a lesser extent Elrond) was that their portrayals in the movie helped show that there was an estrangement between Men and Elves. Remember the words of Boromir and Eomer in the books? Clearly Galadriel was a woman to be feared, as well as respected. Tolkien puts so much love of the elves in the books that it's hard to imagine why the two races are estranged. While Galadriel is clearly a 'good' character in the movie, it is also quite clear why brave men like Boromir and Eomer would think twice about entering the Golden Wood.

Mrs. Maggot, I think I disagree with you fundamentally how things should be conveyed in a movie. Discussions while floating down the river are all very nice, but by doing this in a movie you would be failing to take advantage of the medium. Movies always will be primarily visual- and I think that therefore it is best for a movie to try and convey things visually on the screen. No need to have Frodo and Sam chat excessively to show their relationship- you can see it in the look Frodo gives Sam as he's encouraging him to dance with Rosie, or in the look on Sam's face when he thinks he's lost Frodo in the cornfield, or in the expressions of all the Hobbits when they think Frodo's been killed by your troll (Aragorn also found Frodo's mirculous recovery quite 'unbelievable' in both the books and the movie- 'that spear would have skewered a boar'). Personally I feel that PJ conveyed relationships very well by using vision rather than dialogue. In a similar vein, Tolkien spends pages (especially in UT) discussing how much Gandalf loves the Shire, and I think this is especially well-conveyed by the expressions on Sir Ian's face in the movie- when he first says it's nice to be back in the Shire, when he tells Bilbo he's trying to help him, and when he first hears Frodo say he'll take the Ring at the CoE foo-for-all. Of course these same sentiments could have been conveyed through a lot of dialogue, but that was already done with the BBC radio LotR. I say if you're going to make a movie, try and express things visually.

Finally, regarding Merry and Pippin, I like them in the movie very much. It wouldn't have hurt too much to mention they were related to Frodo before the Pony (incidentally Pippin got it right from the books- Frodo is his second cousin, once removed on his mother's side). However, I think that the expressions and words of Merry convey a lot:

FRODO: I have to leave the Shire. Sam and I have to get to Bree.
MERRY: Bucklebury ferry. Follow me.

"Follow me", not "head that away, good luck!" Merry is not being swept up, he is leading the way out of the Shire, as he did in the books. Again, a mention of relatedness would have helped out before here (Bilbo's party would have been the perfect place, I'd think), but I don't think the relationship is as weak as it's being made out. Again Merry shows his friendship towards Frodo when he willingly lures the Uruk-hai away from the ringbearer at the end of the movie. The expressions on Merry's face convey that he is consciously putting himself in danger in order to help Frodo. If this doesn't hint at an established relationship between the two, then I don't know what would. If the complaint is that relationships should be developed in words during a movie before they can be developed in deeds, then I guess I just disagree.

Mrs. Maggott

10-28-2002, 01:17 PM

Visual is all very well, but if you don't know what's going on all in those pretty pictures, then it's a waste of time. Did you not notice the "voice over" in the prologue? That told you all about what was happening in the battle in which Sauron lost the Ring. If you had not had the "voice over", certainly most of the audience would have been at the very least CONFUSED over what was happening.

The dialogue between Frodo and Sam suggested by me in the Party Scenes would have established their relationship. And when I speak of "relationship" among the characters, of course, I am NOT speaking of familial but of the situation that existed between and/or among them: friendship, emnity etc. Sam had not only been in and around Bag End since his early youth, but he had become "head gardener" there. As a result, he was both an "old friend" of Frodo, but, more imporantly, he was IN SERVICE to him (he was his servant). This - especially in the British understanding - makes their relationship unique and one wherein Sam would have been expected to be loyal and true to Frodo. Theirs was NOT a simple "friendship", as was Merry and Pippin's.

The same type of dialogue could have established the very much closer friendship among the four hobbits BEFORE the chase to the ferry. Furthermore, in the book, Merry and Pippin had made up their minds to accompany Frodo into danger and exile BEFORE the journey began, they were not simply caught up in it by accident. This makes a HUGE difference in the perception the audience has of the characters. In the book they are loyal friends who put their life on the line for Frodo. In the movie, they are scatterbrained sneakthieves who accidentally stumble upon the situation. If that doesn't affect the majority of the audience's perception of WHO the two younger hobbits are, then their participation in the film is on the "video-game" level and it wouldn't have mattered WHAT Jackson did since most of them wouldn't have cared anyway.

If you have watched any of these very odd movies wherein there is little dialogue (that makes sense, anyway) and a whole lot of visual stuff that makes even less sense, then you know that even in films, WORDS ARE AS IMPORTANT AS IMAGES to the understanding and enjoyment of the finished product. To sacrifice the former in order to overplay the latter, does NOT a "better" product make. :rolleyes:

joxy

10-28-2002, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by aragil
Frodo is his second cousin, once removed on his mother's side). However, I think that the expressions and words of Merry convey a lot
As you know that, you must know what M&P's character and behaviour are in the books, and must know how VERY different they are in the film.
That one line "Bucklebury ferry, follow me" IS good, in the context of the film, but it's not the line of P&M's that stays in the mind. It's the purloined fireworks, broken carrot, type of line that registers most. If you like that, fine, but there are plenty around who see the image of "scatterbrained sneakthieves", and, to say the least, regret it.

Talimon

10-28-2002, 09:47 PM

If you have watched any of these very odd movies wherein there is little dialogue (that makes sense, anyway) and a whole lot of visual stuff that makes even less sense, then you know that even in films, WORDS ARE AS IMPORTANT AS IMAGES to the understanding and enjoyment of the finished product.

With all due respect, I have to furiously disagree here. I can't even list the number of good movies and scenes that are legendary yet don't rely on dialogue. Perhaps this is where some of our differences originate, who knows. But for me, as the saying goes, "a picture is worth a thousand words". A well composed scene can tell me leagues more then just dialogue. To use examples from FotR: at the end, when Frodo see's Merry & Pippin as he's running away. He doesn't say a single word, but his looks tells us so much about thier whole relationship. Or the look Legolas has when he find Aragorn by Boromirs side. Gandalf and Frodo laughing at the very beginning. Bilbo before he leaves, struggling with the ring as he drops it.... Sorry, but words can't do what images can (at least for charachter development). You citing Galadriel talking in the beginning is the one place where a movie even needs words: plot exposition. But I'd even argue against that: Much of the true genius of cinema has come in the form of silent film, which has absolutely no dialogue (occasionally subtitles). I never cease to be impressed by the fact that Modern Times (Charlie Chaplin) "says" so much about the human condition, and yet doesn't have it's charachters "saying" a single word. Or, if you like your movies more modern, may I point to the Godfrey Reggio trilogy of films (the last one, Naqoyqatsi, just came out). These movies are just bursting with ideas, yet they don't rely on a single word of spoken (and in the latter example written) dialogue.

I'm not arguing that LotR aught to be a silent film (though that would certainly be interesting :)). I'm just saying that well over half the power of film comes from what we see. I can understand, were you to ignore this and just appreciate the charachters for what they say, PJ's movie would certainly seem shallow (though not nearly as shallow as the majority of Hollywood fluff that is made today). But what make PJ's movie so good and real is what we see, and how we see it.

As you know that, you must know what M&P's character and behaviour are in the books, and must know how VERY different they are in the film.

Actually, he says in the movie that he is Frodo's second cousin, once removed on his mothers side. And by the way, I have to keep mentioning this: Sam, Merry, and Pippin all get new scenes in the Shire in the EE. This doesn't change the theatrical versions quality per se, but I'd just like to point out that many of these complaints will become somewhat obsolete once that edition comes out. As I've stated elsewhere, if you are going to make criticisms of the theatrical verison based on scenes that will be included in the EE, you might be better off blaming New Line rather then PJ (since they pressured for a 3 hour limit).

Mrs. Maggott

10-28-2002, 10:26 PM

It is I who must "furiously disagree" with the contention that dialogue is not as important as the image. Yes, silent films had no dialogue but they had more than "a few" subtitles. Furthermore, anyone who has attempted to watch a gorgeous foreign film filled with cinematic beauty but WITHOUT subtitles in a language that they understand, soon lose interest in the film since they cannot fathom either the plot or the characters.

If you look at all the classic films, you will find that it is dialogue, character development and plot that make them "classics", NOT cinematic marvels. Now, some films MUST have such things. Around the World in 80 Days NEEDED all the Cinemascope Todd AO, technicolor stuff to make its impact, but you STILL needed to have some interest in the characters and the plot. Without the latter, the former would have been nice to watch, but eventually pointless.

Take for instance two versions of one film, "The Haunting". The first was shot in black and white in 1963. There were only a few "special effects" and they were relatively tame. There was no blood or gore. There were few deaths and those who died did so "by accident" and frequently off camera. At the end, there was only a wonderful shot of a car upside down with one of the wheels spinning, spinning... There were no "ghosts" or other X-files phenomena to be seen, only odd camera angles and creepy lighting. What made the film so scary was the plot, the screen play and the character development COUPLED WITH a low key cinematic technique that didn't try to make itself into the focus of the film. Yes, cinematically, the movie was very well done, but it had none of the visual (and visceral) punch and cinematic marvels - including tehcnicolor and incredible computer generated special effects - that the remake had. And yet, the remake couldn't hold a candle to the original!

Yes, film is a visual medium. But if the brain and heart do not connect to the people IN that medium, no amount of "eye candy" is going to make that film work for the audience unless, of course, they are devotees of slasher films and video games where character development means nothing more than providing a scary enough villain and sufficient human fodder for him to use to "strut his stuff!" :rolleyes:

Talimon

10-28-2002, 11:02 PM

I guess we are just looking at two different sides of the same coin. I'm not arguing against charachter: note my examples from FotR are all charachter based. We started this arguement based on charachter development, and I'm arguing that the visual aspects of a chrachter (in this case embodied mostly by the actors body language) say leagues more then any line of dialogue could. You must not be familiar with too many silent films to argue that the sub-titles have anything to do with the depth of the film. Indeed, the best silent-films only use subtitles to further the plot, not the charachters. That's left to the acting, which is often leagues more efficient then what we see today. In many respects, I'd argue the level of acting (in film) has gone down over the years, as so much emphasis has been put on dialogue. It's almost reached the point where just about anyone who can read his/her lines can pass as a movie-actor. What truely separates actors is thier subtlety, what they don't actually "say". This is stuff that has very little to do with dialogue.

Dialogue adds a lot to film, indeed many films simply couldn't exist without it. However, it is a mistake to assume that what makes a good film good is it's dialogue and dialogue alone. Sure, there are movies who rely far too heavily on dialogue for my taste, and occasionally they make for good movies. The Haunting, by the way, is not one of these, in that what makes it so tense is the acting. But that is a completely different type of movie... Though respectfully it also just doesn't happen to be my taste :). Nonetheless, when discussin LotR, we are talking about an epic. And the epic, in the history of film, has never relied on dialogue to single-handedly propel it. Lawrence of Arabia, widely considered the king of epics, made it's whole legacy because of it's visual power. The fact that you call good visuals "eye-candy" is quite demeaning to artists in general. Certainly, what is there in photography/painting other then "eye-candy"? That is nonsense. Films are rightly called "motion-pictures", because they have moving pictures. It's first and foremost a visual medium. There is actually such a thing as "smart", indeed "genius" visuals. Freddie Young, John Toll, Janusz Kaminski, Ron Fricke... These cinematographers have earned thier reputation because of how they look at things, not just what they are looking at. We're talking about legendary folk here, people who's work trancends description. To call what they do "eye candy" is very low, in my opinion...

But my main point, to begin with, was regarding the actors. And that was to say that visually actors say much more then they can by simply reading dialogue.

Mrs. Maggott

10-29-2002, 01:38 AM

The fact that you call good visuals "eye-candy" is quite demeaning to artists in general. Certainly, what is there in photography/painting other then "eye-candy"? That is nonsense <Talimon quote>

I am an artist. I work in paint, stained glass, fabric and porcelain. I would NEVER call good visuals or meaningful artistic renderings "eye candy", but I WOULD call the third, fourth, fifth etc. tree being uprooted or the third, fourth, fifth etc. flyover of Orthanc, "eye-candy" because THEIR POINT HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE and repetition was used simply to take advantage of a good visual at the expense of dialogue, character and even PLOT development.

There were many very beautiful scenic expanses in FOTR that it appeared were put in the film more to assure the audience that the Director "cared" about the film enough to be sure that all of this was REAL and not just a set or some sort of computer-generated false image. The scenery was lovely, but, again, I would have preferred more character development than yet another shot of mountains in the distance (especially as in the Shire, there shouldn't have BEEN any mountains in the distance!) or yet another shadowed vale. You say the film was long and had to be cut. I agree. My problem is WHERE the Director saw fit to cut it and where he chose to linger. :rolleyes:

joxy

10-29-2002, 02:10 AM

Originally posted by Talimon
Actually, he says in the movie that he is Frodo's second cousin, once removed on his mothers side.
And by the way, I have to keep mentioning this: Sam, Merry, and Pippin all get new scenes in the Shire in the EE....if you are going to make criticisms of the theatrical version based on scenes that will be included in the EE, you might be better off blaming New Line rather then PJ (since they pressured for a 3 hour limit).
That's just what Aragil said he said! So....?
Scenes in EE may well be good, but they can't cancel out the effect of those in the CV (cinema version!). Of course, we have to blame the company; for all PJ's great powers, we know he hadn't enough influence on them.

Mrs. Maggott

10-29-2002, 02:15 AM

NOTE OF EXPLANATION: My continued call for defining the "relationship" among the hobbits has nothing whatsoever to do with their familial relationships (cousins, second cousins etc.) but how they RELATED to one another: old friends, servant/master etc. This is what I thought was almost totally disregarded in the film among the four younger hobbits, NOT between Bilbo and Frodo. :rolleyes:

joxy

10-29-2002, 02:16 AM

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
The scenery was lovely, but, again, I would have preferred more character development than yet another shot of mountains in the distance.
My problem is WHERE the Director saw fit to cut it and where he chose to linger.
For example, the river scene was gorgeous but I would have sacrificed some of it for something more important; and there's plenty of much less lovely material that would have benefited from cutting- or complete omission- giving adequate time for plot, action, character, development.

joxy

10-29-2002, 02:20 AM

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
....how they RELATED to one another: old friends, servant/master etc. This is what I thought was almost totally disregarded in the film among the four younger hobbits
Because P&M just threw themselves at F&S, without a hint of everything they knew and had worked out in advance, there was never going to be a chance of establishing who they were and why they were in the film at all. A hint of Crickhollow, at the expense of the slow start to the film maybe, would have helped enormously. Non-readers must be even more baffled by them, as we see them in the film, than we are.

aragil

10-29-2002, 03:28 AM

Allright, who was baffled the first time that they read Lord of the Rings by the snippet of the 'Lay of Leithian' that Aragorn recites to the Hobbits? Tolkien hints at history all the time without describing it in detail- it helps give a background to his fictional world which makes it feel much more real. We don't need to understand the entire history of Middle-earth in order to understand what is going on in the third age. Frankly, I don't see a big difference between this and what PJ is doing in the film. Merry and Pippin are clearly very close friends of Frodo's in the film. My proof? Merry chooses to lead Frodo out of the Shire moments after coming face-to-horse with a Black Rider, and later Merry again chooses to sacrifice himself to the Uruk-hai in order to save Frodo. He is not simply swept up in events, as he is clearly making a conscious decision in both instances. In my opinion this displays great friendship at least as much (actually more in my opinion) as any dialogue could. Does this work without motivation? To me it does- the first instance actually establishes the motivation and shows us what sort of relationship Merry has with Frodo, and also speaks a good bit about his own personal bravery. This relationship then becomes consistent throughout, with Merry and Pippin (and Sam) defending Frodo from Strider in Bree, again from the Ringwraiths on Weathertop, and with Merry and Pippin attacking Mrs. M's Cave Troll after the skewering incident in Moria. To me these actions are perfectly self-consistent, and demonstrate that there is a good deal of friendship between the Hobbits.

Talimon

10-29-2002, 11:22 PM

By the way, while we are on the subject of Merry and Pippin, I have to post this quote from the fan magazine by Dominic Monaghan (Merry):

"My favorite [scene in the trilogy] is the pinnacle of Merry...when he finally comes [into Minas Tirith] and sees Pippin. If they had been together, they would have been ok. But because they've bee split up they're heavily traumatized by the War. They don't recognize each other. Pippin has to explain who he is, and Merry needs his friend from the Shire to bring him back. They're both become men now, and they hug, and it's beautiful."

This proves to me what PJ is doing with thier charachters: making them grow over the course of the trilogy. I firmly believe that Tolkien did this anyway. I think part of the point of having M & P join Frodo so quickly was to show thier naiveness about the whole adventure. They just jumped in, hoping to have a grand time. By the end of FotR, they realize things have changed. They see Boromir die at thier feet, fighting to save thier lives. They realize they've become entangled in a war, and before they can do anything about it they are carried away. I can just imagine that scene he's describing, in Minas Tirith, in the midst of battle, these two friends meeting up together again. I think they will loose a lot of thier innocence as the trilogy progresses. Which, if you study thier scenes in TTT and RotK anyway, you find that this is indeed the case: they were innitially completely oblivious as to what they were getting tangled up in. Pippin doesn't even know Aragorn is the rightful King until they reach Denethors door. I think we are just slightly over-estimating thier courage and "awareness" here, in-so-far as it was exhibited in FotR.

Mrs. Maggott

10-29-2002, 11:32 PM

I'm sorry. I'm sure it's charming, but it's NOT what Tolkien intended.

Yes, the hobbits certainly "grew" and matured during their trials and adventures, but in the book, they started out so much greater in heart and spirit than they did in the film. In the book, they were naive, certainly, but they had steeled themselves to go into peril and exile in support of a friend. They exhibited courage, loyalty and love. In the film, well, you KNOW what they were!

However, as I have said before, it's Mr. Jackson's film, not Tolkien's. :rolleyes:

Talimon

10-30-2002, 03:04 AM

Yes, the hobbits certainly "grew" and matured during their trials and adventures, but in the book, they started out so much greater in heart and spirit than they did in the film. In the book, they were naive, certainly, but they had steeled themselves to go into peril and exile in support of a friend. They exhibited courage, loyalty and love. In the film, well, you KNOW what they were!

I understand, but my point is that it's the same charachter arc. The fact that it starts at a different spot is, in my opinion, part of PJ's creative license. He is doing the same thing with Aragorn, and even Frodo... The charachters still grow in the same way, they just start differently. I think this makes the arc that much more powerful.

Mrs. Maggott

10-30-2002, 03:30 AM

Ah, but where one starts from is VERY important. It is one thing if I go into the water with you to help keep you afloat when I could have stayed in the boat. It is quite another if the boat has sunk and we're BOTH in the water. The first is an act of heroism (especially as I can't swim!) the second is simple misfortune.

To have Aragorn start as a strong, determined and courageous leader who has been denied his throne through no fault of his own (Sauron is stil a power in Middle Earth) is a far different foundation for the man than to have him a vacillating, hesitant self-exiled doubter who gains the courage to lead through his trials and adventures. Yes, he might become a leader at the end, but he will NEVER be the leader in the second instance that he would have been in the first. In the second instance, there would always be the nagging doubt as to how he would react in the face of inescapable disaster whereas, such doubts would not exist in the first instance.

It is simply a matter of math. If two boys begin a rapid growth spurt that lasts for six weeks, although the increment of growth might be the same for both, the boy who was taller to begin with, will be taller at the end. So, too, the individual who begins his "moral growth spurt" at a more exalted ethical level, will be the greater of the two even if both have "grown" at the same rate. ;)

aragil

10-30-2002, 07:53 AM

I'd hate to say it Mrs. Maggot, but there's every possibility that the shorter boy grows at a faster rate over the same period of time, and so both boys end up at the same height. It seems that you're saying movie Aragorn will be less of a King after RotK because he was vacilating during FotR, never mind the fact that he still saves the day at Pelannor and still beats Sauron in the Palantir duel. If anything I'd say that it is more impressive that Aragorn can achieve these things when he has inner doubts than it would be if he achieved these whilst acting as an automoton.
I also disagree with the Merry and Pippin thing- in the books they say something to the effect that they'd follow Frodo, even though they didn't know what danger lay ahead. Personally, I'd say the same thing, and I'd be happy to roll out of bed early on a September morning and follow Frodo to Rivendell. I think it would be entirely harder to do the same thing if I was staring at a Black Rider. If anything, I think the test of friendship was more difficult in the movie, as nothing the Hobbits could imagine in Crickhollow could have compared with coming face-to-face with a Black Rider. I just don't understand how you could argue that encountering a black rider would make the decision easier.

Mrs. Maggott

10-30-2002, 12:28 PM

To begin with, I specifically stated that both boys grew at the SAME RATE. This is an allegory here, not a study in biology. I was merely pointing out that when one starts at a higher level and the rate of "growth" (in this case the character's) is the same, the one who started higher is going to FINISH higher.

Secondly, Aragorn might be more "impressive" starting as a wimp and ending as a King, but he loses his innate nobility thereby. Frankly, I think he is MORE and not LESS impressive starting as a noble man enduring a life of hardship, pain and sacrifice without there appearing to be any possibility of achieving his goal of reclaiming his throne (and thereby, the woman he loves). In continuing to 'fight the good fight' without any real prospect of success, he reveals himself to be the rightful king in more than blood alone.

As for Merry and Pippin's decision to go with Frodo: in the book they knew about the Ring and had learned from Sam the terrible dangers to which Frodo would be subject and they STILL intended to accompany him even against his will. They both knew that this was not a "there and back again" journey to Rivendell. Yes, in the film they continued on after the appearance of the black riders, but they still had no inkling of the dangers ahead. Their decision, though courageous enough, did not have the force of a concious choice made long BEFORE the "heat of the moment" - and thus was less praiseworthy.

joxy

10-30-2002, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by Talimon
The characters still grow in the same way, they just start differently. I think this makes the arc that much more powerful.
I'm still not sure that character develops in the form of an arc, more of an upward-sloping line I would have thought.
That different start does make a difference, a big one;
and it's not just a start, it continues with very little change almost to the very end of FOTR. The leap from letting off fireworks in a tent to realising they are being carried off to a horrible fate is just too much to take. It makes it impossible to "believe" in them.
And instead of the arc becoming more powerful, it just stays unbelievable (in the original sense of the word!).

aragil

10-30-2002, 11:52 PM

Mrs. M- I think we simply have a difference in opinion on what we consider praiseworthy here. I feel that an Aragorn who has to overcome his own inner turmoil as well as the various forces of evil arrayed against him has accomplished more, and therefore is more praiseworthy (you might say that they've grown at a faster rate). I think you're saying that you consider Aragorn's arc to be the same, therefore starting at a morally 'higher' point means he finishes at a higher point (assuming the same rate of growth). Where does my difference in opinion come from- I judge the distance travelled by what I see at the end, I think you assume a similar distance travelled and then look at the end point based on where the start point is. This may not work too well in mathematics, but I don't think there's any hard and fast rules in measuring moral distances, so I'm willing to chalk it up to a difference of opinion.
As for the two Hobbits, again I disagree. They had no idea what to expect on the road in the books. While they could have been imagining something bad, I don't think they could fathom the true terror of the Ringwraiths- probably the most terrifying entities in Middle-earth. IMO it is much more dificult to make this decision when you're staring at the nostrils of a Black Rider's horse then when you're sitting in the comfort of your home in Crickhollow. If they had had no choice in following Frodo in the movie I might agree with you, but the scene is shot and the dialogue delivered in such a way so as to make clear
that Merry makes a personal decision to lead Frodo out.

Joxy-I think you're forgetting how Pippin appears in the books. Some samples I read this morning:

1) After the first night of camping in 'Three's Company', Pippin complains about Frodo's habit of thinking while eating. Clearly Pippin in the books is less of a thinker and more of a doer- kind of like Pippin in the movie.

2) While coming out of the Woody End after the night with the Elves, Pippin loudly complains that they won't get to go to the Golden Perch, site of the best beer in the East farthing. To me this is reminiscent of the 'They come in pints?' bit of the movie.

3) It is Pippin's loose lips at the Pony which compromise Frodo. Tolkien doesn't refer to him as 'scatterbrained', but instead calls him 'the ridiculous Took'. Remember, in the books Pippin is still in his tweens- presumably the Hobbit equivalent of our teenage years. This is the time of life where loose lips like Pippin's in the books might be forgiven, or where acts like setting off the fireworks in the movie could be expected. And before we judge Merry and Pippin too harshly for stealing Maggot's carrots in the movie, we should remember that it was Frodo in the books, arguably the most honorable and introspective of the four Hobbits, who used to rob regularly from Maggot's fields.

4) After the CoE (indeed, on the first page of my copy of 'The Ring Goes South') Pippin uses almost the idential language as what was used in the movie to say ~I'm coming because you need someone with intelligence on this sort of thing. Of course, in the books it's Gandalf who says 'that counts you out', but I hardly think of this too great a departure. Pippin explains why he wants to come and admits that he has no idea what he's getting into. This is perfectly reflected in the movie by his line 'Now, where are we going'. I'm sorry if you don't see that this is the same sentiment (perhaps a bit funnier in the delivery), but to me this fits perfectly with the book. A few pages later Elrond expresses his grave misgivings about the two Hobbits joining the journey, particularly Pippin. Again more evidence that at this point Pippin was considered a trouble maker- not exactly the type to send on this mission.

5) In Moria it was Pippin who tosses a stone down the guardroom well- a conscious, planned action which in all likelihood lead to the Fellowship's discovery and the death of Gandalf. If this doesn't register as scatterbrained, then I don't know what does.

6) In the HoME series, in one of the earlier sketches of the ending of the books, Tolkien makes remarks that if any of the Hobbits should die, it should be Pippin, thereby making up for his rashness in the rest of the story.

These of course are all paraphrases as I don't have any of my books right now, but if you'd like me to provide the quotes I'd be glad to. I think that what they collectively show is that Pippin in the movie was not as great as a departure as you rembember him being. Of course, maybe this is all just my opinion.

Talimon

10-31-2002, 08:11 AM

Triple post!!! That's a first :).

aragil

10-31-2002, 09:31 AM

Just to catch those who normally skim over my posts (like me). Stupid computer- I'll clean that up now.

joxy

10-31-2002, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by aragil
Joxy-I think you're forgetting how Pippin appears in the books. Some samples I read this morning....
These of course are all paraphrases as I don't have any of my books right now....
I appreciate the detail you've given, in that interesting list of references, and I can see your point to a certain extent.
My basic answer to each of them could be summed as "it ain't (so much) what you do it's the way that you do (and say) it". PJ does have that "tin ear" that forces inappropriate language on to his characters.
More specifically, in two instances:
The knowledge P has of the best beer shows that he is fully familiar with drinking habits and makes the "comes in pints" line just silly.
Dropping (not tossing) the stone down the well is a very different matter from the entire skeleton, which just looks and sounds childishly comical and detracts from the seriousness of what might come of it.
BTW, how did you read the samples when you haven't any of your books?

Mrs. Maggott

10-31-2002, 07:13 PM

There can be no doubt that Pippin is certainly the most "immature" of the four hobbits. Elrond is against his going because he is not mature enough to appreciate the dangers involved. Gandalf does indeed call him "fool of a Took" in exasperation after he drops the stone into the well. He is bright enough, but like many immature people, he acts before he thinks. Also, he is physically less mature than Merry, a point made in Moria when it takes him considerably longer to build up the courage to jump over the chasm in the floor (about 3 foot wide) than it did the other hobbits. Doubtless, his immaturity - physical AND emotional - was demonstrated at that part. I think he is also younger than Merry, but I can't recall if that is indeed so.

Interestingly enough, Pippin is the LAST of the four to "prove himself" by going off with the contingent from Gondor to stand before the Black Gates...and he went alone as Merry was still recovering from his wounds. Tolkien's "scene" wherein Merry sees him arrayed in his battle gear looking alone and frightened, a small figure among the warriors, is a very poignant one and illustrates to my mind how much Jackson has denied the two hobbits the stature they deserve so that when one gets to that point in the story (if, in fact, one DOES get to that point in the film), one may empathize fully with little Pippin, the last hobbit to triumph in the Quest.

Talimon

10-31-2002, 10:27 PM

Tolkien's "scene" wherein Merry sees him arrayed in his battle gear looking alone and frightened, a small figure among the warriors, is a very poignant one and illustrates to my mind how much Jackson has denied the two hobbits the stature they deserve so that when one gets to that point in the story (if, in fact, one DOES get to that point in the film), one may empathize fully with little Pippin, the last hobbit to triumph in the Quest.

You have no way of knowing how developed the charachters will be by RotK (when that scene happens). But nonetheless it will happen, as I noted in my earlier quote by actor that played Merry:

"My favorite [scene in the trilogy] is the pinnacle of Merry...when he finally comes [into Minas Tirith] and sees Pippin. If they had been together, they would have been ok. But because they've bee split up they're heavily traumatized by the War. They don't recognize each other. Pippin has to explain who he is, and Merry needs his friend from the Shire to bring him back. They're both become men now, and they hug, and it's beautiful."