🧙 The Tolkien Forum 🧝

Welcome to our forum! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! Plus you won't see ads ;)

PJ's Galadriel: a hagging, nagging witch???

lilhobo

Retired
Joined
Jan 2, 2002
Messages
536
Reaction score
1
man, the fellowship had just gone thru hell and lost a cherished member and all she could do was give a lecture at their first meeting!

Is this another of PJ's inspired change ??:D
 

Ariana Undomiel

Hrívëvendë
Joined
Jul 25, 2002
Messages
822
Reaction score
3
Location
wanderer
Hmmm ... I didn't see that as a lecture at all. I think she was giving counsil and wisdom and she smiled at Sam. :D

~Ariana
 

Ithrynluin

seeker of solace
Staff member
Joined
Apr 27, 2002
Messages
4,623
Reaction score
11
She may have come off as a tad cold but there was not enough time to show the kind Galadriel,though she was kind later on. All in all I think she was done well (and I have high standards concernig her,as she is my favourite character).
 

Talimon

Registered User
Joined
Apr 25, 2002
Messages
1,348
Reaction score
0
Location
Berkeley CA, USA
While I can't quite fully agree with lilhobo, I will concede that there was something lacking there. Lorien, short of Frodo looking into the mirror, didn't serve the story that much. I think the Extended Edition will remedy this, by both expanding multiple charachters, and actually adding a really cruicial scene (gift-giving). From a cinematic perspective Galadriel was somewhat rushed. We don't really see what the story gains by them going through Lothlorien. Hand in hand with the expanded Shire scenes this will be what really raises FotR up a few more notches from where it already stands (an already highly-respectable position, in my opinion).
 

Legolas_lover12

Mentally Insane
Joined
May 28, 2002
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
1
Location
here ...
While I can't quite fully agree with lilhobo, I will concede that there was something lacking there. Lorien, short of Frodo looking into the mirror, didn't serve the story that much. I think the Extended Edition will remedy this, by both expanding multiple charachters, and actually adding a really cruicial scene (gift-giving). From a cinematic perspective Galadriel was somewhat rushed. We don't really see what the story gains by them going through Lothlorien. Hand in hand with the expanded Shire scenes this will be what really raises FotR up a few more notches from where it already stands (an already highly-respectable position, in my opinion).
i agree comepletely:D

I repeat "SHE SMILED SWEETLY AT SAM!" that made the scene warm enough for me.
ah, so we've got another sam lover do we??;);)
 

Mrs. Maggott

Home is where the cat is
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
3,478
Reaction score
11
Location
Long Island, New York
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

Registered User
Joined
Apr 25, 2002
Messages
1,348
Reaction score
0
Location
Berkeley CA, USA
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

Home is where the cat is
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
3,478
Reaction score
11
Location
Long Island, New York
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

Registered User
Joined
Apr 25, 2002
Messages
1,348
Reaction score
0
Location
Berkeley CA, USA
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

Home is where the cat is
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
3,478
Reaction score
11
Location
Long Island, New York
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:
 

Mrs. Maggott

Home is where the cat is
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
3,478
Reaction score
11
Location
Long Island, New York
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

Hrívëvendë
Joined
Jul 25, 2002
Messages
822
Reaction score
3
Location
wanderer
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

Home is where the cat is
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
3,478
Reaction score
11
Location
Long Island, New York
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

Registered User
Joined
Aug 21, 2002
Messages
3,176
Reaction score
6
Location
U.K.
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

Home is where the cat is
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
3,478
Reaction score
11
Location
Long Island, New York
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

Registered User
Joined
Aug 21, 2002
Messages
3,176
Reaction score
6
Location
U.K.
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.
 
Last edited:

Thread suggestions

Top