LOTR: The Peter Jackson Movie

[leakybucket]

Since we are the "forgotten" group we have to wing this. Everyone starts threads on whatever they want to so it's OK if we do. So let's start a movie thread. How about this as a schedule:

Jan 6-13 - Fellowship of the Rings (plus DVD extras)
Jan 14 -20 - The Two Towers (plus DVD extras)
Jan 21-27 - Return of the King (plus DVD extras)

Postings on this subject are somewhat scattered in different threads. If any of the authors want to, maybe they can transfer them over to this one so that everything will be in one place.

There is enough material here to keep us plenty busy for the whole month of January. I looked at the Appendices and they blew my mind! I think I'm going to just hit the "play all" button!

Bucky

[leakybucket]

If you do not have the extended version of the film and want to purchase it you can find it at:

http://video.barnesandnoble.com/search/product.asp?z=y&bnit=H&bnrefer=BROWSE&EAN=794043734724&itm=1

If you want to get it right away, put in your zip code under "Find it in our stores" and it will tell you where and if it is in stock.

[lorien]

Transfer:

Lady_hockey wrote:
How do you feel the novels were handled by Hollywood? What would you have done differently? What would you have added or not included in the movies from the novels?
--------------------------

In the case of the LOTR I think it the film makers did an excellent job. In fact, in some ways better than the book though I feel they are both a unique and parallel experience. The movie is a tighter and more focused story and some of important background material was brought in to help lay the foundation of the story and fill out some of it. It is all in the books but you have to read the prefaces and appendices which no one ever does the first time through. I also think the last part, the two book Return of the King was a much better story in the movie. The book split them in two so the battles and adventures of Merry and Peppin are completed before the start of the telling of Frodo's and Sam's journey. Whereas the movie intermixed Frodo's and Sam's journey with the events taking place in the rest of the world so everything was sequentially in the same timeline. They left out some of the side stories--a necessity and fine with me. They did some altering of the story, especially the first part but it didn't alter the basic events and made for a smoother and shorter story that worked better on the film.

I watched the whole movie through, and now will go back to the beginning, watch it again, and look at massive number of extras on the DVDs for the movie discussion this month. This is one case where I think it is best to watch the movie first and then read the book. You will understand more of the events taking place in the book better, and find the side stories, not included in the film, interesting rather than tedious.

These are just my general comments. I will be more specific, especially on the wonderful characters depicted by the movie, when I go through it again and discuss it in sections. I highly recommend this film, and even more so the extended version. It is well worth the extra money and you will watch this movie time and time again. It is a really good movie.

[niki]

---

leakybucket wrote:
Since we are the "forgotten" group we have to wing this. Everyone starts threads on whatever they want to so it's OK if we do. So let's start a movie thread. How about this as a schedule:

Jan 6-13 - Fellowship of the Rings (plus DVD extras)
Jan 14 -20 - The Two Towers (plus DVD extras)
Jan 21-27 - Return of the King (plus DVD extras)

Postings on this subject are somewhat scattered in different threads. If any of the authors want to, maybe they can transfer them over to this one so that everything will be in one place.

There is enough material here to keep us plenty busy for the whole month of January. I looked at the Appendices and they blew my mind! I think I'm going to just hit the "play all" button!

Bucky

---

I'm moving over my previous posts but I'll have more new to add later now that we are committed to something.


----------------------------
I finished the Lord of the Ring epic movie last night (the extended version) and it is really some movie. The climax and ending took the better part of a box of Kleenex. I don't remember the theatrical versions now so I don't know what was added but the whole 12 hours was one seamless movie.

I thought it most useful in filling in some of the gaps in the Hobbit history because these tidbits were woven into the film. Now that I have reached the end I think I might watch it again. It is a good preparation for the series of four Ring books.

One thing I noticed about the movie is that it truly centered on Hobbits. They began and ended it and were the focus of the story. It was actually a tale of four remarkable hobbits and they were in the end each treated equally.

My first introduction to the Ring series of books was through the movie. The books fleshed out the story and I think seeing the movie first actually helped me follow the books.

Even if you don't want to read the books, I think this movie is terrific. I can't wait for the Hobbit movies to come out. From what I've seen here, the five movie series will probably be one 18 hour seamless epic movie!

[Nadine]

I got a late start on this and only was able to watch the first six scenes last night. Sections 1-3 are actually set-up scenes for what transpires in the main story.

Scene 1, The Prologue, covers the history of The Rings and THE Ring. This section brings us through the events in the Hobbit when Bilbo finds the Ring. It sets up the tone of the whole movie and we know right off what the major problem is going to be. It also makes it clear that the Hobbits are essential to the whole outcome. The Ring was trying to get back to its owner when fortune would have it that it was found by Bilbo. I think this section was an important contribution to the whole story and we would have to do a bit of digging through various sections and books to have picked this up just by reading the book. In fact, I would not have objected to more. This section has been added to in the extended version beyond what was in the theatrical version, but I could not specifically tell you what.

Scene 2, Concerning Hobbits, is a whole new addition that was not in the theatrical version. It was taken from the Prologue to the Fellowship of the Ring book that we had planned on reading beforehand anyway. This does it for me. It also reminds us that Hobbits are going to be very important to this drama. It is light and enjoyable, but I can see why they might have taken it out of the Theatrical version--it adds flavor but not substance nor does it advance the plot.

The next three scenes are the beginning of the main story. Here we are introduced to the principle hobbit players, Bilbo, Frodo, Merry, Pipin, and Sam Gamgees, and of course, Gandolf. All the characters are good and well depicted but Ian McKellen as Gandalf is outstanding. I kept thinking it was too bad they did not get him as Dumbledore in the Harry Potter films. He is formidable, playful, and caring. All of these three scenes had additional material added beyond the theatrical version. The sixth scene, the Farewell to Bilbo by Gandolf as he started out on his final journey has not been changed.

One thing that was very clear in the movie, and I don't remember now if this was emphasized in the books, is Bilbo's addiction to The Ring, but in the end he was able to let it go on his own. Hobbits are really extraordinary people.

[Nadine]

I also thought this web page was an excellent introduction to the movies, the characters and the actors who play them. I'm sure there is a lot more in the special features but it is nice to have things summed up in hardcopy print--at least it is for me.

http://www.lordoftherings.net/index_cast.html

[lorien]

I got the National Geographic documentary on the Fellowship of the Ring and I'm going to watch that tonight. It might be more of the same that is already on the extended version extras. Fortunately, I haven't watched those yet. I report back tomorrow night and then settle in for my second viewing of the Peter Jackson Fellowship film.

[niki]

Fellowship of the Ring

This was stated in the mythic thread but I thought it had relevance to the first movie we are discussioning, especially since it divides so nicely between DVD disk 1 and DVD disk 2

DVD Disk 1

"...the presentation of evil as external and physical, requiring physical heroism to combat it;"

DVD Disk 2

"the second book centers on the presentation of evil as internal and spiritual, requiring a spiritual heroism to combat it."

"The hero matures by coming to understand the character of good and evil—specifically, by descending into an underworld and then ascending into an overworld, a natural one in the first book and a supernatural one in the second."

In the first part, the trip from Bag End to Rivendell, is the physical one. Frodo's "descent the the underworld" actually takes place on Weathertop. Frodo is the reluctant hero who leaves Bag End frightened but figuring his responsibility will end at the Prancing Pony in Bree. When Gandalf (his spiritual mentor) does not show up, he is replaced by Stryder (his physical protector) who leads them safely to Rivendell. On Weathertop Frodo faces the physical fear of the Black Riders, and the physical temptation of The Ring. There his is mortally wounded and destined to turn into a Ringwraiths himself. But is spiritually and physically carried to the safety Rivendell on a White Horse.

The second part is his journey from Rivendell to Lothlorien. He has now taken on the physical responsibility of carrying the Ring to Mount Doom. On this trip he actually does "descend" into the underworld of Moria. He also has time to contemplate his mission. In Moria the evil spirit Balrog deprives him of his spiritual mentor Gandalf. When he emerges from Moria he is truly alone. He temporarily meets a new spiritual mentor in Galadriel who shows him the consequences of his choices if he should fail. Boromir teaches him the dangers of the Ring even in the hands of those who mean to do good and how the Ring can make them evil. Frodo realizes at the end of this journey that he must continue on to Mount Doom alone. There is no longer anyone he can rely on and the responsibility for the salvation of the world rests with him.

That is a lot to ask of a small fellow who has never been a few miles from home and has had a very comfortable existence. But I think part of Tolkien's point here, and it is well shown in the movie, is that great things can be accomplished even by the most insignificant people.

[niki]

I also see another theme emerging here that is well brought out in the movie version. That is the importance of friendship. On these two journey's Frodo does have the support of many friends, especially in The Fellowship itself. Even Boromir realizes his folly and gives his life defending Frodo and his friends.

[niki]

I am finding the movie is not just a bit of escapist entertainment with a lot of action and special effects, though it does have those as well. But it is true to the themes of the books and I think in its enhanced dramatic form brings them to the forefront more explicitly and dramatically. The movie can stand on its own even without the books. Reading the books "peels another layer off the onion" and allows us to go deeper into the ideas later on. I definitely agree--the movie is a good first time entry point into the LOTR. The books themselves are a good second layer into the deeper themes of the books. Then going back into the mythology and history of Middle-earth brings us yet another level deeper. I think we are approaching this project in the right way. There is just too much here to approach Tolkien's whole body of work from beginning to end.

[lorien]

This is something we will probably discuss in more detail when we get to the book. I but I believe that second Disk analysis does fit. The first is Frodo coming to terms on his own external and physical relationship with evil and the second deals with his confrontation with evil on a deeper and more spiritual level. Moria is truly symbolic of this. The Gates of Moria are located on the other side of a lake which I see as Frodo's fears and unconscious self. This is brought out more clearly by the Watcher of the Gate, the monster that lurks at the bottom of the lake and, at least as far as the movie is concerned, singles out Frodo and is his deepest fears. During the battle in Moria, Frodo is stabbed by what should have been a fatal blow by the cave troll. In fact everyone believes he is dead or at least gone for. But he is saved by his mithral undershirt. I see this as his death and spiritual rebirth. For it is shortly after that, that he loses his mentor Gandalf and when he starts to realize that he must go and do this thing alone.

---

niki wrote:
Fellowship of the Ring

This was stated in the mythic thread but I thought it had relevance to the first movie we are discussioning, especially since it divides so nicely between DVD disk 1 and DVD disk 2

DVD Disk 1

"...the presentation of evil as external and physical, requiring physical heroism to combat it;"

DVD Disk 2

"the second book centers on the presentation of evil as internal and spiritual, requiring a spiritual heroism to combat it."

"The hero matures by coming to understand the character of good and evil—specifically, by descending into an underworld and then ascending into an overworld, a natural one in the first book and a supernatural one in the second."

In the first part, the trip from Bag End to Rivendell, is the physical one. Frodo's "descent the the underworld" actually takes place on Weathertop. Frodo is the reluctant hero who leaves Bag End frightened but figuring his responsibility will end at the Prancing Pony in Bree. When Gandalf (his spiritual mentor) does not show up, he is replaced by Stryder (his physical protector) who leads them safely to Rivendell. On Weathertop Frodo faces the physical fear of the Black Riders, and the physical temptation of The Ring. There his is mortally wounded and destined to turn into a Ringwraiths himself. But is spiritually and physically carried to the safety Rivendell on a White Horse.

The second part is his journey from Rivendell to Lothlorien. He has now taken on the physical responsibility of carrying the Ring to Mount Doom. On this trip he actually does "descend" into the underworld of Moria. He also has time to contemplate his mission. In Moria the evil spirit Balrog deprives him of his spiritual mentor Gandalf. When he emerges from Moria he is truly alone. He temporarily meets a new spiritual mentor in Galadriel who shows him the consequences of his choices if he should fail. Boromir teaches him the dangers of the Ring even in the hands of those who mean to do good and how the Ring can make them evil. Frodo realizes at the end of this journey that he must continue on to Mount Doom alone. There is no longer anyone he can rely on and the responsibility for the salvation of the world rests with him.

That is a lot to ask of a small fellow who has never been a few miles from home and has had a very comfortable existence. But I think part of Tolkien's point here, and it is well shown in the movie, is that great things can be accomplished even by the most insignificant people.

---

[niki]

I have a trivia question. In his encounter with Sauraman in the movie, Sauraman takes Gandalf's magic staff away from him and sends him to the top of the tower. Without his staff Gandalf is apparently powerless. He eventually escapes from the top of the tower with the aid of a moth and eagle. Back in Rivendell he has his staff. Now for the trivia question: How did he get it back? Or aren't we suppose to notice it?

[BarbaraN]

I just rewatched the first half of the Fellowship movie and thought it might be worthwhile to note some obvious differences between the book and the movie that we might want to discuss more when we get to the books. The Fellowship is a pretty slow moving book with only a few major action scenes. It is mainly a journey. What they've taken out of the movie are the "side trips" to tighten up the action and avoid introducing and developing totally new characters that only appear once. I think it was a good move and improves the dramatic flow of the movie. They have also made it more exciting. There were some significant modifications as well but, for the first part (Disk 1), the major sections eliminated were:

- The visit to Farmer Maggot and his helping them
- Meeting up with Merry and going to Frodo's new house
- The encounter with Old man Willow
- The encounter with the Barrow-wights
- Tom Bombadil and Goldberry

[Fanuidhol]

---

niki wrote:
I have a trivia question. In his encounter with Sauraman in the movie, Sauraman takes Gandalf's magic staff away from him and sends him to the top of the tower. Without his staff Gandalf is apparently powerless. He eventually escapes from the top of the tower with the aid of a moth and eagle. Back in Rivendell he has his staff. Now for the trivia question: How did he get it back? Or aren't we suppose to notice it?

---

If I remember correctly, the staffs are different.
Fan

[niki]

I have watched this film twice in the past week, and every time the Fellowship emerges from the Mines of Moria I am devastated! It doesn't matter if I know how things turn out, it is a deeply emotional and moving moment. You can feel the grief and despair.

[leakybucket]

The Fellowship

I finish the first movie, The Fellowship of the Ring. What impressed me the most was the significance and the well developed character of each of the members of the Fellowship. It is in the trip from Rivendell to Lothlorien that we get to know each member and they each have an important part to play as the movie continues.

All, of course except Boromir, but during the trip and even posthumously, he is significant to the plot and develops as an individual. He starts as the most disillusioned of the group, has the most disdain for Aragon, and is the most tempted by the Ring. He does have several opportunities to take the Ring and I gather from the concern of the others, once someone has it in their hands it is theirs to rule with. But he does manage to resist the temptation. Many stronger than he have difficulty resisting the power of the Ring. He is not motivated by a lust for power but sincerely cares about the plight of his people. He also really cares about the Hobbits--training them in self defence, protecting them, and is the most understanding and sympathetic of their grief. But the Ring is too strong for him. He does serve as the final catalyst that forces Frodo to face his destiny do what he must do. In the end he dies defending the Hobbits and accepts Aragon as his rightful king.

Boromir's interaction and final scene with Aragon also was significant in getting Aragon to also accept his destiny and realize that he had to face the responsibility of his kingship and earn it and had to let Frodo do what he had to do. Aragon is also loyal to the Hobbits Merry and Pippin and will not leave them to the Orcs. At the start of the journey Aragon was a reluctant leader who did not want to accept the responsibility of his bloodline. He must take over the leadership of the group and make the hard decisions, once they have lost Gandalf.

I can barely tell Merry and Pippin apart at the beginning. They are the comic relief and always getting into trouble, especially Pippin. But they do show resourcefulness and courage when faced by overwhelming odds and a willingness to help their fellow travelers, especially in the end when Frodo must leave. As I recall, we will see significant development of them later on an as individuals rather than virtual "twins."

Gimli shows the soft side of dwarfs in addition to also being comic relief. He is distrustful of elves, insulting, and brags a lot but he does have heart. Legolas is the only one who seems very distant. He, like most elves, does not like dwarves, but he frequently saves Gimli's life (even if it is by grabbing his beard) as well as other members of the group. He is like a one-man army. In some scenes they must have speeded up the film because he fires arrows like they were coming from a machine gun!

And of course there is Sam, who was pressed into service by accident. There is nothing he would like better than to return home and court Rosie and tend his flowers. But he made a promise to stay with Frodo and he means to keep it even if he has to drown doing so.

[Fanuidhol]

As I have stated in another thread, I am a long time fan of the book. I have several reservations about the movies, but, the FotR movie did change my opinion of Boromir for the better. A later reading confirmed that my dislike of Boromir's character was wrong.
Also, I found it hard to differentiate between Pippin and Merry in the book. The films helped me put clear faces on their characters in later readings.

Since we are going to read The Hobbit after this discussion of the movies, I'd like to point out a few things found in the FotR movie that are nods to The Hobbit. The map that Gandalf holds in his first scene with Bilbo is Thror's Map from the book. When Frodo comes into Bag-end looking for Bilbo after he disappears, and Gandalf is sitting by the fire, Gandalf says "Riddles in the Dark", which is the title of the 5th chapter in The Hobbit. After Frodo is stabbed at Weathertop and the company continues on for Rivendell, they stop to tend Frodo's wound where the Trolls turn to stone in chapter 2 of The Hobbit. At The Council of Elrond, the old Dwarf sitting next to Gimli is probably Gloin, his father and one of the Dwarves from The Hobbit.
Fan

---

leakybucket wrote:
The Fellowship

I finish the first movie, The Fellowship of the Ring. What impressed me the most was the significance and the well developed character of each of the members of the Fellowship. It is in the trip from Rivendell to Lothlorien that we get to know each member and they each have an important part to play as the movie continues.

All, of course except Boromir, but during the trip and even posthumously, he is significant to the plot and develops as an individual. He starts as the most disillusioned of the group, has the most disdain for Aragon, and is the most tempted by the Ring. He does have several opportunities to take the Ring and I gather from the concern of the others, once someone has it in their hands it is theirs to rule with. But he does manage to resist the temptation. Many stronger than he have difficulty resisting the power of the Ring. He is not motivated by a lust for power but sincerely cares about the plight of his people. He also really cares about the Hobbits--training them in self defence, protecting them, and is the most understanding and sympathetic of their grief. But the Ring is too strong for him. He does serve as the final catalyst that forces Frodo to face his destiny do what he must do. In the end he dies defending the Hobbits and accepts Aragon as his rightful king.

Boromir's interaction and final scene with Aragon also was significant in getting Aragon to also accept his destiny and realize that he had to face the responsibility of his kingship and earn it and had to let Frodo do what he had to do. Aragon is also loyal to the Hobbits Merry and Pippin and will not leave them to the Orcs. At the start of the journey Aragon was a reluctant leader who did not want to accept the responsibility of his bloodline. He must take over the leadership of the group and make the hard decisions, once they have lost Gandalf.

I can barely tell Merry and Pippin apart at the beginning. They are the comic relief and always getting into trouble, especially Pippin. But they do show resourcefulness and courage when faced by overwhelming odds and a willingness to help their fellow travelers, especially in the end when Frodo must leave. As I recall, we will see significant development of them later on an as individuals rather than virtual "twins."

Gimli shows the soft side of dwarfs in addition to also being comic relief. He is distrustful of elves, insulting, and brags a lot but he does have heart. Legolas is the only one who seems very distant. He, like most elves, does not like dwarves, but he frequently saves Gimli's life (even if it is by grabbing his beard) as well as other members of the group. He is like a one-man army. In some scenes they must have speeded up the film because he fires arrows like they were coming from a machine gun!

And of course there is Sam, who was pressed into service by accident. There is nothing he would like better than to return home and court Rosie and tend his flowers. But he made a promise to stay with Frodo and he means to keep it even if he has to drown doing so.

---

Message Edited by Fanuidhol on 01-13-2008 09:36 AM

[lorien]

I have started the second movie. I might have to save the "extras" until the the final week of the month. I find I enjoy watching each movie several times, and with each viewing it gets richer. My first time through is more for the story and getting to meet the characters. But on my second time through, I start noticing more about the individual characters and how they evolve through the story. This is an amazing movie! It has plenty of action, great special effects, but the most significant thing of all is that the characters are so well thought out and acted so well.

I totally missed a lot of that when I first watched the movies several years ago and when I first read the books. People seem to dismiss the movies as "LOTR light" but I am seeing a lot of depth to them that I am sure will add a lot more to my book reading experience. This depth becomes more apparent as I rewatch the films and more focused as I move through the series of films. There is much I am going to want to comment on as I watch this second film of the series.

Message Edited by lorien on 01-14-2008 10:34 PM

[BarbaraN]

I am finding all the characters in the movie well drawn and believable as real people. Each develops and grows. A fascinating aspect of the film that, I agree, is one of its strong points.

The only one I am finding that does not work for me is the character of Legolas. I gather he was to be the teen heart-throb for the movie--fine. He alone doesn't seem to have much personality. Well that might be the nature of the cold and distant elf. But his feats are beyond the most accomplished comic book hero and totally unrealistic! Like ski-boarding down the stairs at Helms Deep with his rapid-fire arrows--he has to have exceeded his 37 claimed kill! But the one feat that was much too far out was when he defeated the Oliaphant single handed. He ran up up his swinging trunk and leg, swung over to his back leg, climbed up the sheer bare rump with no obvious hand-holds of the galloping animal while constantly firing arrows at the riders, some how killing all, getting rid of the platform, and then with a single tiny arrow to the Oliaphant's head penetrates the thick hide and kills him, but before the animal falls instantaneously dead Legolas slips off safely to the ground hardly ruffled! He didn't even diminish his supply of arrows. Now common! Jackson could have still done this heroic effort in a slightly more believable way as an Indiana Jones feat. But I'm afraid this stretched the imaginative possibilities of this viewer a bit more than it can be stretched!

I imagine this all appealed to a certain audience and boosted box office sales, but I find it regrettable and as a major flaw to a well-done movie.

[Nadine]

Time to move onto the second film. I'm a little behind but I can catch up tonight.