The "Vision" Thing

[Mrs. Maggott]

Both critics and defenders of the film(s)* have used the word "vision". For the former, it's Jackson's "vision" vs. Tolkien's "vision. For the latter, it's Jackson's "vision" equals Tolkien's "vision". Yet, very few posters have dilineated just what they believe either Jackson's or Tolkien's "vision" IS! What did Tolkien SAY in his great work and how much of what he said - not what he WROTE - did Jackson capture in the film?

I would ask both defenders and critics of the film(s)* to define what they believe Tolkien's "vision" is and in what ways Jackson did - or did not - capture the author's ultimate meaning.

[*Of course, it is difficult to do this with only ONE film to use as a basis for comparison, but I believe that the Director has presented enough of his "vision" for this issue to be successfully addressed. :)]

[Talimon]

For me "vision" is just the way PJ made the film, his priorities, his philosophy about film-making and LotR, and just the emotion and feel he put into it. A lot of this isn't quite tangible, but you ca get a "feel" for it, so to speak.

I guess if I had to sum it up I'd say that what carries both Tolkiens and PJ's tale forward are the charachters, not the plot events. Yes, the charachters to a certain degree are the plot, but rarely do they play the simple role of furthering the plot and nothing more. Also, I feel that people make way too much of the battle scenes in PJ's movie. When it comes down to it, it's really not what the movie is about. It's about Frodo, his struggle with the ring. It's about Sam, and his loyalty to Frodo. It's about Boromir, and his lust for the ring. It's about the Fellowships journey.

I don't think PJ and Tolkien have the exact same vision. I don't think I have ever claimed this. In fact, the only time I can recall using the word "vision" is when applying it to how PJ feels the tale ought to be told, as in, "PJ has a specific vision about hos this scene ought to develop." Nonetheless, one place where they do share it, I feel, is just in the nature of how they told thier tales. Reading Tolkiens tale, and seeing PJ's movie, one can't help feeling that what is important here isn't only what is being told, but how it is being told. They are both master story-tellers in thier own mediums. The emphasis on the telling of the tale is in my opinion their greatest similarity. All too many film-makers (and artists in general) put far too much emphasis on what they are doing, rather then how they are doing it. For me it's not enough to just tell LotR and keep the main events. You have to tell it with feeling and with conviction. You have to stand behind what you are telling, and you have to be so confident in it that the audience has no doubt about it. This is what separates Tolkien from every other fantasy author out there. And I am all too grateful that Jackson has the same priorities about how a tale ought to be told.

I have this quote from the fan-magazine about why PJ moved Shelob to RotK. To me it kind of sums up his philosophy of only doing what feels right. Many directors, given the content, would go against thier instincts just to stay true. I think that the fact that PJ isn't one of these is percisely why he is one of the only directors fit to make LotR. I'll post the quote just for this point, but let's not go off-subject here and actually discuss the merits of keeping/moving Shelob:

"It all has to do with pacing, with narrative...it has to do with a feeling of shape and structure. We felt as we developed the script that Sam and Frodo's story in this film is really one in which they meet Faramir, they have Gollum with them, there are charachter dynamics happening between the Gollum/Sam/Frodo trio, and there are charachter dynamics with Faramir... We felt this was really a story about Gollum, Frodo, and Sam...a psychological drama that gets complicated when Faramir comes into the picture. We felt it was the story from those charachters points of view. We felt the climax of The Two Towers should involve the charachters that we're telling our story about. We wanted it to have a conclusion with those charachters. To then have the climax with a giant spider that didn't have anything to do with the dynamics that we have been establishing during the course of the film didn't feel right to us. It just felt wrong. Our instincts told us that it wasn't the way to proceed."

[joxy]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
....very few posters have delineated just what they believe either Jackson's or Tolkien's "vision" IS!....
I believe that the Director has presented enough of his "vision" for this issue to be successfully addressed.]
I don't want to be unkind to PJ, but I really don't think the word "vision" can be used on equal terms about both him and Tolkien. No doubt PJ does have a way of looking at LOTR, but it's not based on a lifetime of study of literature and language. There are too many personal quirks, or indulgences, from orc-birthing to wizard-swinging, for anyone to claim for him a clear vision of the film as a coherent work (of art).

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by joxy
I don't want to be unkind to PJ, but I really don't think the word "vision" can be used on equal terms about both him and Tolkien. No doubt PJ does have a way of looking at LOTR, but it's not based on a lifetime of study of literature and language. There are too many personal quirks, or indulgences, from orc-birthing to wizard-swinging, for anyone to claim for him a clear vision of the film as a coherent work (of art).

Everyone knows that I have been at times a defender, but mostly a critic of Mr. Jackson's "version" of the film. Yet, I do not think that it is exactly fair to say the he has no "vision" of the story. Indeed, that may be the problem because if he had no "vision" of the work, he might actually have stuck much closer to the original!

Now, that does not mean that his "vision" MEANS the same thing as Tolkien's. In fact, Mr. Jackson's "vision" may be driven by what he thinks will "go over" with the movie-going audience. Hence, he enlarges the "romance" and "battle" aspect of the story. He may have been "caught up" with a good "quest" tale and merely wished to bring it to the screen in the most exciting way possible. Therefore, he removed those parts he thought would "slow" the pace of the tale (Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs for two), enlarged those characters he thought would increase audience interest (Aragorn and Arwen for two) and brought as much cinematic special effects excitement as possible into the mix. This is a "vision" of the work, but not the same sort as Tolkien's.

Tolkien wished to produce an English/Anglo-Saxon myth. The Norse people had their "racial myth" as did the Germanic peoples. Tolkien believed that the Arthurian myth was French in origin and Tolkien was a unapologetic francophobe. He wanted a purely ENGLISH myth - and that's what LOTR (and all those works associated with it) are. As well, Tolkien wanted his mythic story told from the perspective of "the little people" - the hobbits. Although there are other major characters in the story - Gandalf and Aragorn to name two - NO ONE is more important in LOTR than the hobbits. That's why the War of the Ring ends with the Scouring of the Shire and NOT the Return of the King.

It is also obvious from what we have seen of Mr. Jackson's work so far that this essence of Tolkien's "vision" has NOT been carried over into the films.

[Talimon]

As well, Tolkien wanted his mythic story told from the perspective of "the little people" - the hobbits.

It is also obvious from what we have seen of Mr. Jackson's work so far that this essence of Tolkien's "vision" has NOT been carried over into the films.

Which is why the film ends with the "the little people" continuing on thier quest? Why the film focuses on Frodo and his struggle? I don't know how much more focus you expected on the hobbits, but if you expected it as the expense of any of the other charachters I can't agree with you. Within the 3 hour framework, PJ gave the hobbits as many scenes as he possibly could without completely destroying any of the other members of the Fellowship. Actually, that's not even accurate: Gimili and Legolas are cut down. This doesn't hurt the tale, but the effects are noticeable. PJ cut down on the two least important charachters in this chapter of the tale, and in my opinion it shows. If any more hobbit scenes were to be added, they would have to litterally be added, on top of the current edit of the film. Which is why we have the EE :).

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Talimon
Which is why the film ends with the "the little people" continuing on thier quest? Why the film focuses on Frodo and his struggle? I don't know how much more focus you expected on the hobbits, but if you expected it as the expense of any of the other charachters I can't agree with you. Within the 3 hour framework, PJ gave the hobbits as many scenes as he possibly could without completely destroying any of the other members of the Fellowship. Actually, that's not even accurate: Gimili and Legolas are cut down. This doesn't hurt the tale, but the effects are noticeable. PJ cut down on the two least important charachters in this chapter of the tale, and in my opinion it shows. If any more hobbit scenes were to be added, they would have to litterally be added, on top of the current edit of the film. Which is why we have the EE :).

You are looking at this much as a "director" or "producer" would; that is, the amount of screen time given the character or characters which indicates their relative importance to the story. But that's not what makes the story from the hobbits perspective. What makes it from their perspective has to be established almost immediately and that's when we get back to my complaints about the need for a longer introduction to the hobbits themselves. There is very little time used in the film to develop the relationship among all FOUR hobbits so that when they set out on the quest it turns into a mad dash out the front door! Indeed, it is far more akin to BILBO's setting out in The Hobbit than Frodo's in LOTR!

Yes, the hobbits have "screen time", but the perspective of the film is from Gandalf's or Aragorn's or Elrond's or Galadriel's or even Boromir's point of view, NOT the hobbits - or at least, not theirs principally. That's what all that slow, dull "stuff" was in the beginning of LOTR, the "stuff" that was pretty much absent in the film. Yes, it slowed the pace, but it established the fact that the reader was going to be seeing the story from the HOBBITS' point of view. When you remove the interaction among the hobbits with regard to the Ring, the danger it represents and the actions that must be undertaken under the prevailing circumstances, then the hobbits become merely one group of characters involved in the quest rather than the "lens" through which the quest is perceived and that is where Jackson's "vision" failed in relationship to Tolkien's.

[Talimon]

If that extra time spent in the Shire is so cruicial, keep in mind that we now have (in the EE) a new introduction to Hobbits by Bilbo, extra scenes between him and Frodo, a new scene with Merry, Pippin, Frodo, and Sam at the Green Dragon, and another couple scenes with Frodo and Sam on thier way out of the Shire. I still believe that the audience got the point here, however. We're obviously meant to see the tale through Frodo's eyes (at this point), and we do. I want the extra scenes in the EE, but considering what PJ could have cut in place of those I think he made the best choice he could have. I certainly would not want a movie that starts well and finishes rushed.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Talimon
I certainly would not want a movie that starts well and finishes rushed. [/B]

If a movie doesn't start well, I for one probably will not care HOW it "finishes".

[Leto]

Totally agree Mrs.M. That was the biggest problem I had with the movie...the lack of development of the Hobbits. Even just a single scene which showed their relationship, (before they began their mad dash out of the Shire), would have been something. I hope the Green Dragon scene in the extended DVD does this. I was most disappointed with the way Merry and Pippin were introduced, and their antics along the way. We at least see Sam and Frodo together at the party (though their relationship is modernized, and is not the 'master/servant' friendship they have at first in the book). As a character, Frodo is shown as a tense, afraid little Hobbit, right from the outset of the journey...instead of the level headed, good natured, and brave character he is in the book. In the movie, we see Merry become determined and brave later on, when he finds out Frodo is in danger. But we should have understood from the beginning that he and Pippin are very close friends of Frodo, instead of mischievous rascals who just happen to run into Frodo along the way. That extra time in the Shire is crucial...since it is so, it leaves one to wonder why it was cut from the theatrical version. For without those introductions, the viewer is left to wonder just why these Hobbits are following Frodo at all, Sam included. Why was he spying in the bushes in the first place? Who is he to Frodo? Why would Merry and Pippin leave the shire with Frodo when they just run into him along the way? I don't believe the audience 'got the point' at all...how could they? It would be interesting to take a poll of people who have seen the movie, who have not read the books, and see just what 'point' they got from it, what they made of the Hobbits' relationships, (if they even noticed the Hobbits) etc. Hopefully the next movies will take the characters in the 'proper' directions...though with a different beginning, the destination does not quite mean the same thing.

[Mrs. Maggott]

As a character, Frodo is shown as a tense, afraid little Hobbit, right from the outset of the journey...instead of the level headed, good natured, and brave character he is in the book. (Leto quote)

There is another problem here with Frodo's development and that is that Jackson has not permitted the time lapse that was in the book but, rather, he has Frodo inherit the Ring - in the book it was at age 33, but Jackson makes no note of Frodo's age in the film - and almost immediately learn of its nature and begin the quest. In the book, 17 years has passed between the first and second occurrance. Also, when he does that, Jackson has to make Merry, Pippin and Sam CONTEMPORARIES of Frodo rather than being considerably younger than he. When the Quest begins, Merry and Pippin at least, are still in their "tweens" - that is, they have not not yet "come of age" (33). So this makes Frodo, instead of being the natural leader, merely "one of the boys", as it were. Therefore, why SHOULD the other hobbits defer to him as they did in the book?

Jackson's development of the story from the first makes Tolkien's vision of the hobbits and their relationship to the tale problematic at best and, more than likely, impossible.

[Leto]

Mrs.M, of course you are right. If we were to discuss everything the movie didn't include, or did differently which changes the characters as we know them, the post would be very long indeed. :) I'm sure all of them have been covered at some point in the past year, throughout all the discussions and arguments about the movie here on the forum.

(I think the passage of time could have easily been shown via narration or subtitle...ie, "seventeen years pass quietly in the shire")

[Mrs. Maggott]

(I think the passage of time could have easily been shown via narration or subtitle...ie, "seventeen years pass quietly in the shire" quote Leto)

Yes, I have said in other threads that Jackson made excellent use of the "voice over" technique at the beginning of the film but chose to forego its continuing usage even though it might have "filled in" gaps of time and information in the rest of the film. Certainly, dialogue also could have been used to delineate certain situations. I don't know where I did it, but I did supply an "example" of such dialogue as might have been used in the party scene between Sam and Frodo which would have explained much of what was left unsaid - and unknown. It wasn't good "screenwriting", but it made the point that the party scene would have been an excellent venue for Jackson to establish the friendship and inter-relationship among the hobbits without having to put in another whole scene.

There were many ways in which all of the above could have been accomplished within both the time and budget constraints under which Jackson worked. The only reason I can possibly see why they were not is that the Director did not consider them important enough to be SURE they were in the finished film and NOT just the "EE". :rolleyes:

{P.S. Re the EE: I have seen countless references by the "Defenders" that us "purists" should "look to the EE" for answers to our critiques. However, I would posit that the EE is NOT the film! Furthermore, those purchasing the EE versions will probably be Tolkien enthusiasts who already KNOW the information that might be provided by the EE rather then the "novices" who saw the original film. And although that is not to say NO "novice" will purchase the EE, I would like to point out that putting in needed details and character/plot development in the EE does NOT help develop and/or clarify the meaning of the film for the vast majority of the audience who may NEVER SEE the EE. Thus, to me, the term EE has come to mean "extra excuse" rather than "extended edition".}

[joxy]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
I do not think that it is exactly fair to say the he has no "vision" of the story.
I didn't say, or mean to imply, that PJ has no vision of it.
I'm suggesting that it's unfair to both T and PJ to use the same word, "vision", for both, with the same depth of meaning.
T spent a lifetime steeped in literature and language; his vision came out of that.
What is PJ's background? I don't know, but even within his own sphere, of film-making, I understand it is very limited, compared to the breadth of T's; is it enough to have given him a comparable form of vision?

[Talimon]

Thus, to me, the term EE has come to mean "extra excuse" rather than "extended edition".

Maggot, by doing so you are ignoring the circumstances of film-making. Yes, unfortunately some folks will never see the EE. But that doesn't mean it's not both the superior, and in the film-makers eyes ideal, version of the film. PJ has never stated which of the two he prefers, but he has said that the Extended Edition will appeal much more to fans of the book. Now considering that most (if not all) of your criticisms of the movie are based on inconsistencies with the book, one would think that edition would be the one worth critiquing. As I've stated, if after watching it you feel bitter that this wasn't the version that was shown in theatres, blame New Line, not PJ.

As for the 17 years, considering that we DO see Gandalf in Minas Tirith, and considering that we WILL see him eventually reach Minas Tirith again, by the time all is said and done audiences will realize it took him quite some time to get there.

[Parrot]

before seeing Talimon's post....
{P.S. Re the EE: I have seen countless references by the "Defenders" that us "purists" should "look to the EE" for answers to our critiques. However, I would posit that the EE is NOT the film! Furthermore, those purchasing the EE versions will probably be Tolkien enthusiasts who already KNOW the information that might be provided by the EE rather then the "novices" who saw the original film. And although that is not to say NO "novice" will purchase the EE, I would like to point out that putting in needed details and character/plot development in the EE does NOT help develop and/or clarify the meaning of the film for the vast majority of the audience who may NEVER SEE the EE. Thus, to me, the term EE has come to mean "extra excuse" rather than "extended edition".}

Mrs. Maggott, at the risk of seeming confrontational, I would counter this position with the idea that you seem to be using a bit of circular reasoning. When you say “needed details and character/plot development” do you mean “needed” solely to help develop the movie, or “needed” to pull the movie closer to the book? My understanding is that most of the major criticisms are based in a knowledge of the book and how the film deviates from it. Though specific points can be made (e.g. Arwen’s ride ;)), the movie is mostly consistent in and of itself, is it not? The novice audience has no “need” for these scenes that help reconcile the movie story line and characters to the book because they don’t have the requisite knowledge of how things are supposed to be in the first place. They don’t know whether M & P are portrayed “correctly” or not, so there is no “problem” for the EE to solve in these areas, in my opinion of course. Hopefully, it will expand the understanding and inject some deeper meaning however.

The people with the biggest problems are those with extensive knowledge of the book it seems to me, and as you say, these are the people most likely to view the DVD, so it seems a perfect fit. Many purists feel cheated by the mass consumption, dumbed-down, version of the movie; so isn’t anything that gets you (us, them,?) even marginally closer to that elusive “ideal” version a good thing, and a very relevant argument as to whether he truly understands and/or cares about the story he purports to be telling?

It seems to me that the EE would have been the perfect vehicle for PJ to go hog-wild with his ego-driven inventions and just load it with a bunch of mass-pandering tripe, or blood and gore, to make it more marketable to the “novice” audience. Instead, it seems that he has taken pains to specifically include those scenes that should make it more palatable to the true Tolkien devotees, for which he should be commended, IMO.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Parrot
....the movie is mostly consistent in and of itself, is it not?
It is not.
The natures of the characters, the dialogue, and the action are as inconsistent as the some of the characters' sizes!
We've all seen the hobbits change size like different stages of a jack-in-the-box, and the inconsistencies that match those changes have been listed too often here to need repeating.

[Ariana Undomiel]

I bet Tolkien's ultimate vision was to a right a good adventure story that portrayed some of his imagination to the public. PJ took that and put into a film. ;) I am sure there were lots of other visions, but this one probably was the main one. Although, who am I to say that I know what Tolkien had in mind?

- Ariana

[joxy]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
That's what all that slow, dull "stuff" was in the beginning of LOTR, the "stuff" that was pretty much absent in the film.
Yes, absent from the film, yet the film takes thirty five minutes from F jumping out on G to P&M jumping out on F! What do we learn in all that time? Precious (!) little. Most of the half hour + is padding, and there would have been plenty of time if most of that had been left out, to give time instead to a scenario like Mrs M's that would have established who the hobbits really are and how they relate to each other. Other than the "uncle" and "xth cousin" relationships, the non-readers are given no idea who they all are.

[Talimon]

"Padding"? Give me one good scene from the Shire that could/should have been cut. It all adds tremendously to the audience sympathizing with the Hobbits. I particularly liked Bilbo's party, and the kind of easy feel it had. It really showed the culture and nature of Hobbits.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Parrot
Mrs. Maggott, at the risk of seeming confrontational, I would counter this position with the idea that you seem to be using a bit of circular reasoning. When you say “needed details and character/plot development” do you mean “needed” solely to help develop the movie, or “needed” to pull the movie closer to the book?

The people with the biggest problems are those with extensive knowledge of the book it seems to me, and as you say, these are the people most likely to view the DVD, so it seems a perfect fit. Many purists feel cheated by the mass consumption, dumbed-down, version of the movie; so isn’t anything that gets you (us, them,?) even marginally closer to that elusive “ideal” version a good thing, and a very relevant argument as to whether he truly understands and/or cares about the story he purports to be telling?

It seems to me that the EE would have been the perfect vehicle for PJ to go hog-wild with his ego-driven inventions and just load it with a bunch of mass-pandering tripe, or blood and gore, to make it more marketable to the “novice” audience. Instead, it seems that he has taken pains to specifically include those scenes that should make it more palatable to the true Tolkien devotees, for which he should be commended, IMO. [/B]

My reasoning is not "circular". I have said that Mr. Jackson chose to change and enlarge the film including things that either were not there in the book or though "based upon" persons and/or plot that WERE, are essentially changed unnecessarily. I further said that he chose NOT to include many things that would have furthered Tolkien's vision of the tale in favor of his OWN vision which is essentially different if not exactly diametric from the author's.

As for the "gratitude" that we "purists" should feel for Mr. Jackson's occasional attempts to "follow the book" which appear in the EE, I would say that we would have been far MORE "grateful" if they had appeared in the finished film and not on the cutting room floor.

And as for the "mass-pandering tripe, or blood and gore" that you mention, you are quite correct. They are NOT found in the EE, but many of them ARE found in the edited film! And that, alas, it the problem.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
Give me one good scene from the Shire that could/should have been cut. It all adds tremendously to the audience sympathizing with the Hobbits. I particularly liked Bilbo's party, and the kind of easy feel it had. It really showed the culture and nature of Hobbits.
I could go through them one by one, and either reduce some or cut them out. I would miss what was taken out, but if something more relevant was put in their place the film would be better as a film, AND as Tolkien.
The invented opening is charming, shows us how delightful the shire and the people are, but tells us only that there is to be a party, not even what the special relationship of F is with Bilbo. B pottering around his hole and G banging his head merely irritate.
The party is fine, except for P&M with the fireworks.
But we actually learn very little in that whole half-hour or more. and it would have been so easy, as Mrs M has demonstrated, to give some explanations that would have helped non-readers, and pleased readers.

[Talimon]

Well, consider that non-readers don't even know what a hobbit is. We are being thrown into this completely "alien" world, with a completely different people with a completely different culture. A lot of what the first half hour brings across is done by means other then dialogue. It's much more of a visual introduction, which is a much more intuitive approach for a movie to begin with.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Oh, it certainly is visual, but also erroneous. For instance: Bilbo is shown finding the Ring. His hair is dark and lush. We later see him with Gandalf who is looking at him closely and says, "You haven't aged a day!" Meanwhile, Bilbo's hair is now white and thin! What do you mean, "he hasn't aged a day"? You BET he has!

Some little (very little) thing has been said between Frodo and Gandalf about him getting Bilbo to "go on an adventure", but not enough information is given to clarify when this happened and that the Ring was found during that adventure (that could have been done in the voice over at the beginning without too much trouble because in that part of the prologue, it is never explained what Bilbo is DOING in Gollum's cave).

The visual part of the movie introduces us to "hobbits", but it isn't enough. We don't know enough about the "hobbits" who are going to be part of the story! Some people who were unfamiliar with the story expected BILBO to take part in the Fellowship not realizing until the party that he was so old.

Visuals do not always "clarify" a situation. Indeed, like Bilbo's hairdo, they can be an agent of confusion! Along with visuals one must have dialogue or voice overs or SOMETHING to illuminate the situation in the minds of the audience or the film BEGINS with confusion - and when that happens, it's usually downhill from there! :confused:

[Talimon]

Mrs. Maggot, you are grasping at straws. Bilbo's hair color? C'mon, give me a break. First of all, it's not white. That is only in Rivendell, after he's given up the ring. In Bag End he looks only mildly older, not nearly 60 years worth. You keep saying "It isn't enough". Well, I know we'd all love a 4-5 hour movie, but that's just not going to happen. Maybe some folks here would prefer a movie all made up of close-ups and dialogue. That's not Tolkiens book and it's for sure not PJ's movie.

As for Bilbo's adventure, that's what the The Hobbit is for. It's not particularly relevant to this film, and it's a detail that audiences can live without. The Prologue is already packed with information as it is. Who needs more info? Luckily PJ cuts quickly to the Shire, and infuses the movie with emotion from the very first shot (Frodo and Gandalf laughing). There are some scenes in the movie that could have been arguably cut for more charachter development. In my opinion nothing in the Shire comes close to qualifying. It's a section of the movie that in my opinion is just perfect. It's exactly the type of introduction the movie ought to have. I can't wait for the extra Shire scenes on EE. It's one of my favorite sets.

[Mrs. Maggott]

I am hardly grasping at straws! You state that the visuals tell the story and I am telling you that there is a LARGE difference between the Bilbo in the prologue who finds the Ring and the Bilbo who greets Gandalf when he comes to Bag End and his hair is only part of it. He looks considerably older as I mentioned and, furthermore, not a great deal of "film time" passes between the two renderings of the character, so the AUDIENCE is also aware of the change. To then have Gandalf say that he hasn't aged a day is both confusing and, frankly, untrue to Mr. JACKSON's rendering of Bilbo in the later scene. Furthermore, it would not have lengthened the film to have Bilbo "match" his earlier appearance and, indeed, it would have made his "old" appearance in Rivendell that much more cinematically dramatic. As it was, he does not appear that much older than he did during the party scene. However, if the Director wished to show him older (for whatever reason) it would have been much better to have Gandalf say something to the effect that he hardly looks older than he did when he set out with the dwarves so many years ago. This would at least be believable.

It is not "nit picking to bring to light problems with the Director's "visuals" in which you obviously put such stock to make everything crystal clear the audience. If you are going to hold the "visuals" up as evidence, then you must expect them to be scrutinized against that standard.

No one has suggested that it should have been all closeups and dialogue, but there was certainly room for clarifying dialogue in the scenes at the beginning of the film which would have helped considerably in developing both the characters and the plot line. Frankly, since Mr. Edison's time, I was of the opinion that both picture AND sound are necessary for a good film.

[Talimon]

Immediately after the credits it says, in the bottom left corner I believe, "60 years later". If Bilbo looks a bit older it's not nearly 60 years worth. And, for the record:

Prologue Bilbo:

http://www.quintessentialwebsites.com/lordoftherings/movieshots/bilbo_finding_ring_wide.jpg

Shire Bilbo:

http://www.quintessentialwebsites.com/lordoftherings/decipher_cards/305_oldtoby.jpg

Rivendell Bilbo:

http://www.quintessentialwebsites.com/lordoftherings/movieshots/bilbo_rivendell_closeup.jpg

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
A lot of what the first half hour brings across is done by means other than dialogue. It's much more of a visual introduction, which is a much more intuitive approach for a movie to begin with.
It IS a visual thing, and I think it looks great, but it actually "gets across" very little- it's all looks and so little substance. Mrs M's and my point is that so much more could have been "got across" without giving up any of the visuals. What little dialogue there is now is little more than casual chat, and just a little more, with much more meaning in it, would have made things so much easier for non-Tolkienians, and so much more enjoyable for "us"!
What on earth is an "intuitive approach"?!

[joxy]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
....it certainly is visual, but also erroneous.
Some little (very little) thing has been said between Frodo and Gandalf about him getting Bilbo to "go on an adventure"
The visual part of the movie introduces us to "hobbits", but it isn't enough. We don't know enough about the "hobbits" who are going to be part of the story!
Along with visuals one must have dialogue or voice overs or SOMETHING to illuminate the situation in the minds of the audience or the film BEGINS with confusion
I agree that Bilbo's appearance is more than a "straw". It struck me as very odd, and I guess it would confuse Non-T audiences even more.
That little thing certainly is "very"- just a mention of a dragon, which would mean absolutely nothing to a non-T audience.
What very little we get to "know", in thirty five minutes, about THE hobbits is mostly false to T, and doesn't fit all that well with the way they turn out in the film either. T says that PJ "infuses the movie with emotion from the very first shot (Frodo and Gandalf laughing)"- emotion that's false to them both, to T, and to them as they develop throughout the film. The scene looks fair (beautiful in fact) but feels foul (almost enough to put me off altogether, the first time I saw the film).
If I'd come to the film as a non-Tolkienian I'd have been startled by the contrast to the dark dramatic introduction, wallowed in the Hobbiton scenery, but been baffled as to why so little was happening and being explained. Then suddenly there's a solid chunk of Ring explanation between Gandalf and Frodo; these abrupt changes of mood and style surely deserve the adjective "confusing".
There are other points when chunks of dialogue suddenly appear, bringing an unreal and artificial feel with them. We need the dialogue, of course, but preferably presented rather more subtly!

[Mrs. Maggott]

Immediately after the credits it says, in the bottom left corner I believe, "60 years later". If Bilbo looks a bit older it's not nearly 60 years worth. And, for the record:<quote Talimon>

What makes Gandalf "suspect" the nature of the Ring? Simple! The fact that Bilbo "hasn't aged a day" since he left Bag End sixty years before. But in fact, HE HAS AGED. It might not have appeared to be 60 years worth, but you cannot say that either as hobbits apparently live a long time and appear hale and hearty well into their 80s and 90s. The fact is BILBO AGES! The Ring grants a sort of immortality. If Gollum had aged "as little as Bilbo aged", he would have been dust years ago since he had the Ring for 500 years.

The prologue has said the Ring gives extended life, but Bilbo appears to have aged. If he had appeared at the time of the Party as he appeared when he FOUND the Ring, the Director would have made a much bigger "VISUAL" point, especially if he then showed Bilbo at his full age in Rivendell scarcely a year later. As it is, Bilbo's "aged" appearance at Rivendell isn't all that VERY different from his appearance at Bag End and would require some knowledge of the book for the audience to understand that he had started ageing again once he had given up the Ring.

[Talimon]

If Gollum had aged "as little as Bilbo aged", he would have been dust years ago since he had the Ring for 500 years.

Considering that Gollum starts as something of a hobbit, and ends up on all 4, crawling, eating raw fish, changing his speech, and looking absolutely nothing like a hobbit, I don't see your point. He seems to have changed plenty to me, certainly 6 times as much as Bilbo did (at the very least). Maybe we saw things a little differently, but I never took Gandalfs remark literally. For a hobbit living well past a hobbits life expectancy, Bilbo looks as though he is in his early 60's, if not late 50's. I don't think the audience was confused, considering that by the time we get to Rivendell he looks like he is well into his 80's, if not 90's (yes, visually, but more importantly in the way he acts). Can you honestly see Rivendell Bilbo running around Bag End, chattering his mouth off? No way. He can barely stand up to greet Frodo when he meets him.

What very little we get to "know", in thirty five minutes, about THE hobbits is mostly false to T, and doesn't fit all that well with the way they turn out in the film either. T says that PJ "infuses the movie with emotion from the very first shot (Frodo and Gandalf laughing)"- emotion that's false to them both, to T, and to them as they develop throughout the film. The scene looks fair (beautiful in fact) but feels foul (almost enough to put me off altogether, the first time I saw the film).

I have to completely disagree. Not true to Tolkien? In what respect? You give the example of the first scene having Gandalf and Frodo laugh. I can't understand what's not "true" about it. It is a time of innocence, before the evil of the ring is brought into play. Obviously thier charachter are different as the film progresses. The purpose of the opening scene (other then bringing a sense of livelihood to the film) was to show what was at stake. It was to really show us the friendship these two charachters have, and how fond Frodo is of Gandalf. To me it plays perfectly with Frodo's reaction to Gandalf "dying". Being a film with so much exposition, PJ managed to make it as well hidden and natural as possible. We have just gotten what is essentially 8 minutes of pure, unadultrated exposition. I can't think of a better scene then the one PJ included. It reminds the audience that this tale is going to be about real charachters and individuals, not just some complex plot.

[Mrs. Maggott]

<Considering that Gollum starts as something of a hobbit, and ends up on all 4, crawling, eating raw fish, changing his speech, and looking absolutely nothing like a hobbit, I don't see your point. He seems to have changed plenty to me, certainly 6 times as much as Bilbo did (at the very least) quote Talimon>.

You are comparing apples to Buicks. Gollum's physical changes are the result of his life style, NOT the Ring. If Bilbo had lived as Gollum lived for 500 years with the Ring, he, too, would have "changed" - but "changed" is not the same as AGED. Furthermore, it had been some 60 years since Gollum had possessed the Ring and so he aged. I originally asked a question as to why he had not died since he would have been making up 500 years of possession. The consensus of opinion seemed to be that because he had possessed and used the Ring for such a long time, his life force had become connected somehow to the Ring and therefore he would live as long as the Ring existed and die with its destruction. On the other hand, Bilbo had only possessed (and used) the Ring for a relatively short period and so he simply resumed (and made up) the aging process which ceased with his acquisition of the Ring.

<Maybe we saw things a little differently, but I never took Gandalf's remark literally. For a hobbit living well past a hobbits life expectancy, Bilbo looks as though he is in his early 60's, if not late 50's. I don't think the audience was confused, considering that by the time we get to Rivendell he looks like he is well into his 80's, if not 90's (yes, visually, but more importantly in the way he acts). Can you honestly see Rivendell Bilbo running around Bag End, chattering his mouth off? No way. He can barely stand up to greet Frodo when he meets him. quote Talimon>

Frankly, I took Gandalf quite literally and in fact, it SHOULD HAVE BEEN "literal" in that Bilbo does NOT "look a day older". That was part of the power/magic of the Ring! Apparently, Gandalf has not seem Bilbo "disappear" in the film. We know this because he looks so astonished at the party. However, in the book, we know that Gandalf has been aware of this ability of the Ring since "The Hobbit" and at the party, he arranges a "fireworks display" to keep Bilbo's secret just that, a "secret". It is this unchanging appearance that gets Gandalf's attention in the first place and this is even more noticable in the film than the book as he "peers carefully" at the old hobbit as he delivers his famous "You haven't aged a day" line.

As for Bilbo's appearance in Rivendell, well the audience would have expected him to age - after all, the KNOW he's 111 and they also KNOW he has given up the Ring. The change in his behavior in Rivendell - since there wasn't too much change in appearance - is going to be LOST on the general audience. So what if he isn't running around the way he did in the Shire? In this case, Mr. Jackson has been entirely TOO subtle in his attempt to inform the audience that Bilbo has attained his true age after 60 years of possessing the Ring and therefore NOT AGING during that period of time.

You cannot hold up the Director's visuals as his means of informing the audience - rather than dialogue - and then discount this absolutely ESSENTIAL point made at the beginning of the film, to wit: that the hobbit Bilbo Baggins has in his possession a Ring of Power whose properties make the Wizard Gandalf suspect that it may be something of utmost importance and danger! Good heavens! As important as the development of the relationship among the hobbits was (however unrealized), this is an even MORE important plot development - and Mr. Jackson failed to do it properly! Bilbo should not have been shown as aging slowly, but as aging NOT AT ALL since that is one of the hallmarks of the Ring! And since you yourself admit that Bilbo had AGED since he is shown acquiring the Ring, then even you must admit that using the criteria of his own film, Mr. Jackson has FAILED to VISUALLY present his point.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
[The opening scene]
Not true to Tolkien? In what respect? I can't understand what's not "true" about it.
The purpose of the opening scene (other then bringing a sense of livelihood to the film) was to show what was at stake.
It was to really show us the friendship these two characters have, and how fond Frodo is of Gandalf. To me it plays perfectly with Frodo's reaction to Gandalf "dying".
Being a film with so much exposition, PJ managed to make it as well hidden and natural as possible. We have just gotten what is essentially 8 minutes of pure, unadulterated exposition.
Not true to T in that Frodo and Gandalf did not have that kind of relationship. F was not a little boy who would jump out on to his old grandpa figure. We have just seen the fearsome prologue, now we are in what looks like the start of a children's fairy story.
What does livelihood mean in this context please?
What does it show was at stake?
They don't have that kind of friendship in T, and don't show much of it later in the film, but it DOES fit with the film version of F with a tear dripping down his face after Moria. Moria IS great, and the scene after it extremely moving, but F's long drawn out "NO!", and his tear drop are OTT.
So much exposition? In those chunks of sudden dialogue, which are quite the opposite of hidden and natural, certainly, but in more general terms it's a LACK of exposition that we have been noting.
Those eight minutes expose the fact that the Shire is charming and its people delightful, and would be fine in your film of "A Day in the Life at Hobbiton". In FOTR they are a waste of what we are told is valuable time that is difficult to find.

[Mrs. Maggott]

<They don't have that kind of friendship in T, and don't show much of it later in the film, but it DOES fit with the film version of F with a tear dripping down his face after Moria. Moria IS great, and the scene after it extremely moving, but F's long drawn out "NO!", and his tear drop are OTT. quote Joxy>

Oh dear! I have so FEW allies, I hate to disagree with one, but remembering what transpires in Moria in the book, it would seem that Frodo was VERY fond of Gandalf and that EVERYONE is weeping as they flee from the mines. As for the "NO!" and the teardrop, these I take as cinematic expressions that, though they aren't in the book, are certainly germaine to the emotional content of the scene.

Yet, I can understand from whence cometh the good Joxy! The problem here is that the time lapse is different in the book vis a vie the film. Jackson begins his exposition with a DEVELOPED relationship between Frodo and Gandalf because he is NOT going to give us the 17 year period of time from Frodo's acquiring the Ring from Bilbo and Gandalf's exposition of its identity. During that 17 years, Gandalf has now become as close to Frodo as he was to Bilbo. But because that time is not going to happen, Jackson has had to START with an already established relationship between the two which, of course, does not exist in the book.

Frankly, I was much more confused by the greeting between Gandalf and Bilbo! According to the story, Gandalf had been a fairly constant (if not too frequent) visitor to the Shire to see Bilbo (the Ring being one of - if not the only - reason for his interest). In the film, they look at and greet each other as if they had not met for the 60 years since Bilbo returned from his "adventure" - and that makes NO sense considering that Frodo has already told Gandalf that the Shire folk consider him something of a trouble maker! If Gandalf has not been seen in the Shire for 60 years, how come the children all know him? If he HAS been in the Shire frequently enough to be considered suspicious AND well known to the children, why does Bilbo greet him as he does? All he had to say was something to the effect about how GLAD he was that Gandalf was able to come to the Party! But in the scene it appears as if Gandalf's presence is the surprise of Bilbo's life!

[Lhunithiliel]

If I was surprised by our little "debate" about the "vision" thing at the other thread, HERE, after I patiently have read every post, I have to say:
Sorry, but I feel disapoined! :(

First, because as I have said in the other discussion, EVERY artist has the right to interpret the truths of our world in his/her OWN inderstanding. To deny this, means to offend every single person who has read Tolkien and did not like him, or has read Tolkien and has understood the things in his/her own way.

Second, because I hate it when someone claims to understands EXACTLY what the author's true vision was when creating his/her masterpiece. How on earth can one know that?! This can only mean: "Ah! Tolkien is so "transparent"! I know what he had in mind when he wrote this or that!" Would you say that? I don't think so! So, how come that you people claim that YOU know what Tolkien's true vision was?

Third, because from everything you have stated so far, if PJ had to follow the requirements of people calling themselves "purists" to stay as close to the book as possible, he:
>would not have been a film director at all, but just a mere imitator, a counter-feiter with no brains enough as to produce sth. on his own. "Artists" that perfectly suit this description are known everywhere and noone ever looks/reads/listens at their works. I can't believe you're demanding PJ to become one of these!
> would have needed to make at least 5-6-hours films! Funny!

I'm not denying some mistakes he made! But be honest and tell me whether you have never found any faults in Tolkien's stories? J.R.R.Tolkien at least had his son put in order what he had written, in order to give the world the beauty of his invented mythical world!
An still, many of those "mistakes" could not be explained, nor corrected...they just stay as they are - call them "gaps", or "unattended" facts, or sth. that the author seem to have abandoned... The fact is that they are there, in Tolkien's writings.... but strangely YOU, "purists" don't point at them when comparing Tolkien and PJ.

Four, becuase you have forgotten the title of the thread and have started to debate over trifles!

Finally, I'd wish to say that if one cannot accept originality and diversity, it's OK with him/her. But I personally can't see how such a person will ever persuade me (being a totally unconventional person) and people like me that only a few are the "originally" thinking and creating people in our world and that everyone else is fake and everything else is fake and worthless!

SORRY FOR THE LONG POST! :rolleyes:

[joxy]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
....remembering what transpires in Moria in the book, it would seem that Frodo was VERY fond of Gandalf....
As for the "NO!" and the teardrop, these I take as cinematic expressions that, though they aren't in the book, are certainly germaine to the emotional content of the scene.
Frankly, I was much more confused by the greeting between Gandalf and Bilbo!....
But in the scene it appears as if Gandalf's presence is the surprise of Bilbo's life!
It's OK, I think we're still on the same wavelength!
I'm lost on that one though- what was it in Moria that showed F as "very fond" of G?
In matters of the emotions, one man's sincerity is another man's schmalz- it's always a fine line, especially in films, and for me those two points go over to the schmalzy side; the rest is perfect- the scenes, literally, bring a tear to MY eye!
And now right back in tune: I've just come from watching the first half hour, and one thing that struck me particularly was the contrast between the childish "You're late" from F to G, and Bilbo's astonishment at seeing G. One expects G, the other is surprised at seeing him. If F knows G is coming, B must know also- G would be staying at Bag End!
I have to add too, that B definitely looks too old.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Lhunithiliel
true vision[/i] was when creating his/her masterpiece. How on earth can one know that?! This can only mean: "Ah! Tolkien is so "transparent"! I know what he had in mind when he wrote this or that!" Would you say that? I don't think so! So, how come that you people claim that YOU know what Tolkien's true vision was?

Third, because from everything you have stated so far, if PJ had to follow the requirements of people calling themselves "purists" to stay as close to the book as possible, he:
>would not have been a film director at all, but just a mere imitator, a counter-feiter with no brains enough as to produce sth. on his own. "Artists" that perfectly suit this description are known everywhere and noone ever looks/reads/listens at their works. I can't believe you're demanding PJ to become one of these!
> would have needed to make at least 5-6-hours films! Funny!

I'm not denying some mistakes he made! But be honest and tell me whether you have never found any faults in Tolkien's stories? J.R.R.Tolkien at least had his son put in order what he had written, in order to give the world the beauty of his invented mythical world!
An still, many of those "mistakes" could not be explained, nor corrected...they just stay as they are - call them "gaps", or "unattended" facts, or sth. that the author seem to have abandoned... The fact is that they are there, in Tolkien's writings.... but strangely YOU, "purists" don't point at them when comparing Tolkien and PJ.

Four, becuase you have forgotten the title of the thread and have started to debate over trifles!

Finally, I'd wish to say that if one cannot accept originality and diversity, it's OK with him/her. But I personally can't see how such a person will ever persuade me (being a totally unconventional person) and people like me that only a few are the "originally" thinking and creating people in our world and that everyone else is fake and everything else is fake and worthless!

1. No one is denying an artist his or her right to expression. I just wished to know WHAT was being expressed since the "artist" in question has declared that the changes he made were the result of his own "interpretation" of the story - and his defenders have declared he had ever "right" to thus "express" himself. However, I don't think it's too much to ask just WHAT he was "expressing". If one is going to defend something by saying that another "vision" was being brought to the fore, one must expect someone to inquire as to WHAT that "vision" was. Surely if it could make a many-million $ film, it has to be real enough to be defined!

2. I do believe that Professor Tolkien has expressed HIMSELF often enough for most people who have read him to kind of get an idea of what he was trying to present. It is not as if his works were anonymous and we haven't the vaguest idea of who wrote them or why. To call into question the ability of the person who is asking the question regarding Jackson by saying that they could not possibly understand Tolkien, is not answering the question that has been asked. Even if I did NOT understand Tolkien or if my understanding were faulty, that does not in any way negate the question I HAVE asked. I have not presumed to articulate Mr. Jackson's "vision" - I have only asked someone to tell me WHAT IT IS!

3. I did not demand that Mr. Jackson attempt to reproduce the books at all. I merely asked why he did some of the things to the characters and plot line that he did - and the answer simply CANNOT be "time and money" constraints since much of what he did ADDED to the time of the film. I really don't understand WHY this question has produced such angst among some FADS! I have said that I enjoy the films, but that I thought much of what Jackson did diminished and not elevated the characters. That's my "vision" if you will on the matter. I have only tried to determine from those who SAY they know, WHY he did what he did.

And as for "mistakes" in Tolkien's writings that are not brought up in defense of Mr. Jackson: how would one go about doing such a thing? Professor Tolkien did not base his books on Mr. Jackson's films, but vice versa. If and where errors are made in the books, they do not come into the debate at all. If one wishes for such a debate (Errors in the Writings of J. R. R. Tolkien) I am sure there is a forum for such a thread, but it would be pointless to discuss it here.

4. I can hardly forget the "thread" as I STARTED it - and I started it to find SOMEONE who can articulate Mr. Jackson's "vision" for the story he has created since he himself as well as his defenders and supporters keep telling us that the story isn't Tolkien's LOTR! Well, WHAT IS IT??

5. Conventional/unconventional. These are "labels" that do nothing to further the discussion. I find that one of the things that sometimes happens when someone cannot answer the question being asked - rather than simply admit that he or she doesn't HAVE the answer - is that the person turns around and finds a convenient label for whoever asked the question as if that nullifies the question itself. That type of response does produce heat, but very little light.

[Talimon]

You are comparing apples to Buicks. Gollum's physical changes are the result of his life style, NOT the Ring.

Interesting. By that rationale, hobbits who live underground will by nature start eating raw fish, regardless? I must have missed a footnote somewhere in Tolkiens writing. Please enlighten me.

The change in his behavior in Rivendell - since there wasn't too much change in appearance - is going to be LOST on the general audience. So what if he isn't running around the way he did in the Shire?

While you are discussing the finer points of the film with the "general audience", could you make sure to ask them a few other questions? I think joxy himself has made the point that it is useless to make assumptions on the part of the "general audience". I don't fully agree, but when it comes to such minute detail I have to concur. You are assuming far too much on the audiences side. He certainly seemed much older to me, both visually and otherwise. I don't know what more you expected. Sitting in a wheel-chair, arthritis and everything? That is certainly not what Tolkien wrote.

Bilbo should not have been shown as aging slowly, but as aging NOT AT ALL since that is one of the hallmarks of the Ring! And since you yourself admit that Bilbo had AGED since he is shown acquiring the Ring, then even you must admit that using the criteria of his own film, Mr. Jackson has FAILED to VISUALLY present his point.

I have only stated that he aged slightly, perhaps 5 years worth at most. I guess we just disagree on how dramatic PJ ought to have presented this. I prefer subtlety, when possible.

What does livelihood mean in this context please?
What does it show was at stake?

Um...thier friendship? The beauty of the Shire? The light-hearted society they enjoyed? :confused: Seems a little obvious to me.

Those eight minutes expose the fact that the Shire is charming and its people delightful, and would be fine in your film of "A Day in the Life at Hobbiton". In FOTR they are a waste of what we are told is valuable time that is difficult to find.

You misunderstood. I am talking about the 8 minute prologue. That is 8 minutes of pure exposition. To contrast that with Frodo and Gandalf meeting was a very smart move on PJ's side. For me it stands as testament that his goal here is to make a satisfying movie.

In the film, they look at and greet each other as if they had not met for the 60 years since Bilbo returned from his "adventure"

What....? :confused: Where did you get that from? Bilbo is merely happy to see Gandalf. That comment, "Haven't aged a day" almost has a nostalgic tone to it, as in Gandalf is thinking back on the last 60 years he's known him. Nothing there suggests they haven't met since.

If F knew G was coming, B must know also- G would be staying at Bag End!

Frodo didn't know Gandalf was coming. Indeed, Frodo says it with a tint of sarcasm, "You're late". The whole point of that scene is to show them both restraining themselves. Finally Frodo can't hold it any longer and he jumps on Gandalfs cart. Certainly just as surprised and excited as Bilbo, if not more. He only restrained it for a few seconds, and Bilbo did not.

I'm lost on that one though- what was it in Moria that showed F as "very fond" of G?

Listening to Gandalf console him, fighting to jump after him when he falls (only to be held back), his look after being called by Aragorn outside. Those scenes would have carried much less weight, in my opinion, without the opening scenes of Gandalf and Frodo. It would almost be cheesy, in fact, and feel as though the director is shoving it down our throat. As it is, it feels much more convincing and real.

And as for "mistakes" in Tolkien's writings that are not brought up in defense of Mr. Jackson: how would one go about doing such a thing?

I think the point Lhunithiliel was making here is that not everyone thinks Tolkien is flawless, and not everyone agrees with the way certain scenes are, word for word. By pointing it out he/she is in turn saying two things: One, PJ's movie doesn't need to be flawless to still be considered a worthy adaptation. And two, many of the changes PJ made were made because he felt that the way some scenes were written in the book didn't translate well to the screen.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon

You misunderstood. I am talking about the 8 minute prologue. That is 8 minutes of pure exposition. To contrast that with Frodo and Gandalf meeting was a very smart move on PJ's side. For me it stands as testament that his goal here is to make a satisfying movie.
Yes, sorry, I see I misread your meaning in that one.
But this "smart move"? I don't begin to understand that. The very dramatic and sombre prologue, then an invented scene, bland and calm in complete contrast, linked only by the caption "60 years later", showing G and F with characters that fit neither the books nor the film, and telling us nothing more than that Bilbo is F's uncle, and that something happened with a dragon. "Who's this Gandalf?", I hear the non-T audience asking.... What does that satisfy?
Oh, and what WAS that about "livelihood", last time?

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
Those scenes would have carried much less weight, in my opinion, without the opening scenes of Gandalf and Frodo. It would almost be cheesy, in fact, and feel as though the director is shoving it down our throat. As it is, it feels much more convincing and real.

I'd accept "cheesy" for F's long-drawn-out "No!" and his drip of a tear, but apart from that I think it's a great sequence, with all the characters, including F, acting out just the right level of emotion, and showing the right relationship with Gandalf. I don't look back to the opening false little-boy/granpa-figure scene in that respect at all. Moria and the escape stand on their own as convincing and real, without any reference back.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
Frodo didn't know Gandalf was coming. Indeed, Frodo says it with a tint of sarcasm, "You're late". The whole point of that scene is to show them both restraining themselves. Finally Frodo can't hold it any longer and he jumps on Gandalfs cart. Certainly just as surprised and excited as Bilbo, if not more. He only restrained it for a few seconds, and Bilbo did not.
Sorry to keep going on about that post, but you've really lost me here. They didn't know G was coming? F&G are bursting to show joy at unexpectedly getting together? Those coy twitches of their mouths before they grin at and hug each other are all about that? B's surprise does fit in with that I accept, but the whole thing is so absurd. B&G are "very old friends", G has been visiting often enough for young children to know him well, G knows B is planning to leave, G is coming to the party and bringing fireworks - without F&B knowing?? I can see now that F's look as he says "you're late" might be meant to be a sort of witticism, but this is all too subtle for me, and I GUESS for others!
Footnote: While G is idiotically busy banging his head, B says, from the depths of Bag End, and almost buried in Mr Shore's music, but confirmed by the DVD sub-titles, "I was expecting you some time last week". So, F's "you're late", HAS to be meant literally.

[Talimon]

"Who's this Gandalf?", I hear the non-T audience asking.... What does that satisfy?

"Who's this Gandalf?" is not a question that readers of Tolkien are safe from asking either. We learn who he is by his actions, and as the introduction with Frodo shows he is a friend of the Baggins. But the introduction serves another purpose: to show us the beauty of the Shire. To me that is essential. PJ lets the beauty and simplicity of the Shire speak for itself.


Oh, and what WAS that about "livelihood", last time?

That was only to say that after a very thick, dense introduction, it was a good move on PJ's side to show that this isn't going to all be exposition. There is no better way in my opinion to introduce charachters then by having them show some emotion. I felt that opening shot showed that. Some have stated that they thought Gandalf was too fraile, loving, dare I say "lively". I won't deny he was, but I felt that was what made him so admirable. There are two aspects to Gandalf, the wizard and, for lack of a better word, the hobbit-lover :). One thing that truly sucked about Bakshi's movie (well, one of many things :)) was that Gandalf was solely there for plot exposition. In the book, he is distinctly a wize wizard, yes, but a humane one. What distinguishes him from Saruman is that he does care, and love, the small and "less important" folk. One of the great moments between Gandalf and Saruman is at Orthanc after it's been destroyed. Saruman lures Gandalf to leave behind those smaller folk that follow him, to come join Saruman in his high tower. That was one of Gandalfs great moment, in my opinion. And it all amounted to him being on the same level with the inhabitants of Middle-earth, not above them (as Saruman, and Sauron, would be). The fact that he even treats as such with hobbits, such a small and unimportant folk, is true testament to this quality of his.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
[1]"Who's this Gandalf?" is not a question that readers of Tolkien are safe from asking either.
[2]But the introduction serves another purpose: to show us the beauty of the Shire. To me that is essential. PJ lets the beauty and simplicity of the Shire speak for itself.
[3]That was only to say that after a very thick, dense introduction, it was a good move on PJ's side to show that this isn't going to all be exposition. There is no better way in my opinion to introduce characters than by having them show some emotion. I felt that opening shot showed that.
[4]One of the great moments between Gandalf and Saruman is at Orthanc after it's been destroyed. S lures G to leave behind those smaller folk that follow him, to come join S in his high tower. That was one of Gandalf's great moments, in my opinion.
[1]Indeed, but that's not what I meant! As a non-reader I would have been baffled about who they both were, and when I came to the book later I would have felt swindled to realise that the film began by giving a false impression of the characters and their relationship, PJ's vision, not T's.
[2]Yes, I've agreed that it, and the next 30 minutes, do give a gorgeous and genuine appreciation of the Shire and the hobbits; BUT, with time at such a premium, and considering the benefit of explaining who's who and what's going on, it would have been perfectly possible, and very desirable, to use the 30 minutes also for much more than that impression. Of course, the F-G and G-B big-hugs show a sort of emotion, nothing else indeed, but the false and shallow variety (imho!).
[3]That's not in my definition of "livelihood", so we must put that down to the transatlantic difference again, but I see what you mean. The trouble is that half an hour it is TOO MUCH of a relief from the dense narration, it takes too long to take up the story again, and then when we DO get the narration back, in the F&G scene, that has to be TOO dense, and looks and sounds as if it has been artificially placed there.
[4]S wants G to join him in the tower after it has been destroyed? I think I know the scene you mean though, and totally agree that it is a great moment for G, and hope very much it is going to be presented well in the film.