A Lord of the Rings Movie Trilogy Retrospective, Part One

[KingODuckingham]

The Fellowship of the Ring came out in December 2001, approximately 18 and a half years ago. I went to see it in the theater at 13 years of age with my father, who had read me the books maybe two years before. We bought the DVDs pretty soon after they became available, and I have watched them, give or take, once every few months since then. I have watched Fellowship a bit more than the others, partially because it is my favorite and partially because sometimes I give up before making it all the way through. Still, by my very rough math, I would estimate I have seen the entire trilogy somewhere upwards of 75 times, and Fellowship maybe 100 times. The trilogy (extended) is roughly 11 hours long. That means I am likely approaching 1000 hours of my life spent solely on watching Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings.

After watching these movies for so long, I feel like I have something to say about them. Time does not make me a master of the subject matter, and I claim neither storytelling nor filmmaking expertise. I do not know overmuch of costuming, music-making, or acting (though I know a little of all three). I am no script-writer, book-author, producer, director, or even stagehand. In sum, I am in no way a professional or a scholar on any relevant topic. I am simply an amateur with absurd levels of passion which have blinded me to any sense of objectivity.

I have thought for years about making a post like this and how to organize it, and I have decided the best thing to do is lay out some axioms or otherwise foundational premises, and after that a bit of a TL;DR, assuming anyone even reads that far. It would be uncharitable to lead people on an endless thought train without defining some terms and establishing some common expectations, at minimum. What follows, then, is a bullet point list of some considerations that I am putting into this retrospective:

1) A movie that names and bases itself off of source material owes a debt to that source material: to attempt to capture the spirit of that source material in the movie medium. Where the LOTR movies succeeded or failed is primarily bound up in this consideration, though there is a complicated web of factors that play into making a judgment on this.

2) A movie is a wildly different medium than a book, and as Marshall McLuhan famously said, the medium IS the message. Therefore, a modification to bullet one is that the movies cannot make a 1=1 translation of the spirit of the LOTR books. A movie must conform to the limits of visual media, a book to intellectual media. A movie has limits of time that a book does not. A movie must be explicit where a book relies on the brain of the reader to interpret or fill in the gap apart from the author, etc etc. Much more could be said here, but succinctly, the movie has not failed merely by leaving out, adapting, or even adding to portions of its source material. Nor has it automatically failed by changing emphases in theme(s). The question of success or failure in these cases is bound up more to do with the film's execution as a film rather than anything to do with the books per se.

3) I subscribe to Aristotle's Poetics in saying that a story is good not solely in its value as entertainment (delight), but in its character (morality). A good story is both. There will, no doubt, be many times when I inject my simple opinion on entertainment "I liked this, I did not like that". There will be other times I attempt to explain this or that as good, and in this I am attempting to make an objective claim rather than just stating an opinion. E.G., Gandalf telling Frodo that we all wish not to have hard times, but we must decide what to do with our time is GOOD, it edifies and instructs a person in how they ought to be. If you don't believe in objectivity, I advise you to ignore these parts rather than trying to convince me objectivity doesn't exist. That would be a long, fruitless, and ultimately pointless conversation, and would distract from the goal of this project. If you just want to say my opinion is wrong, feel free to throw me in the dumpster, I deserve it.

4) While this retrospective will inevitably contain lots of criticism, I hope for the overall tone to be positive. I would not have watched these movies so many times if I did not love them. On the other hand, the honeymoon phase is long over, and the faults still remain, or in some cases are magnified. I also know it is easy to be a critic and a hater on the internet. If I reach the end of this, however, without having properly communicated why I love these movies so much, I will consider this project a failure.

5) In a similar vein, I will mostly attempt to avoid offering suggestions for what should have or might have been done differently. That would imply a level of knowledge and expertise I have already explained I do not possess. I know it can seem condescending or unhelpful to criticize without offering solutions, but in my defense I am a condescending and unhelpful person. Also this is already gonna be really long so any excuse to shorten it my wrists welcome.

6) My plan is basically to go stage by stage (and sometimes scene by scene) through the entire extended trilogy and talk about everything I have thoughts on. Which is a lot. I will keep all the Fellowship related posts in this thread, and then make another one when I get to the next movie, and so on. I am not planning on talking about any of the extra-movie material. No easter eggs, no behind the scenes, no cast commentaries, etc.

A TL;DR, if for some reason you read all of that but then decided Fredegar that, nobody got time to read that:

The movies are good. They succeed at capturing the most important of LOTR's themes (although not all the important ones), by which I mean the reliance on the small rather than the great, the power and loveliness of friendship, loyalty, and forgiveness, the eucatastrophe that Tolkien describes in On Fairytales, self-sacrifice, and a willingness to stand for what's good in the face of certain defeat. Nearly every technical aspect (cinematography, music, costuming, casting, sets, CGI, and so on) is fantastically well done and outright incredible. The actors almost all knock it out of the park with peak performances. The most noteworthy frustrations are a misinterpretation of Aragorn's character arc, several more minor (but still significant) character assassinations, some jarring tonal inconsistencies with dialogue, occasional attempts to please everyone that please nobody, and an annoying tendency to treat the audience as though they were stupid.

If you want to read the above opinions explained in excruciating detail, keep reading the posts that will appear below this one.

[Lirimaer]

I am gonna follow this thread because you are a delightful writer. *brings popcorn*

[Dwim]

I too will be along for the ride. And just so you know that at least one of us DID read all of that, I will pick out my two favourite highlights from your opening post:

While this retrospective will inevitably contain lots of criticism, I hope for the overall tone to be positive. I would not have watched these movies so many times if I did not love them.

That is such a fair statement, and the sort of thing that I hope would apply not just to your upcoming analysis, but also to our Movies forum as a whole. While I know there are some here who do not love these movies, the fact that the Movies forum has always been active is because most of us have loved or cared enough about the movies to watch them dozens of times over, enough to be able to have a vocal opinion on pretty much any scene in the things. I recognise many bad decisions and changes made to the story, some of which make me complain out loud every time I watch them with someone, but this is despite the fact that I do absolutely love the films and get emotional damn near every time I watch them again.

The movies are good. They succeed at capturing the most important of LOTR's themes (although not all the important ones), by which I mean the reliance on the small rather than the great...

The mention of this theme got me at the right time, as I just finished my second re-watch of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey today. In one of the embellished scenes, where Elrond is questioning Gandalf about why he must bring a hobbit along on the journey, Gandalf says something about how in the fight against evil, it is the small people doing little, everyday things that is of the most effect in that fight, and that this brings him comfort. I thought, well hey, they've added A LOT of nonsense to this movie, but at least they're honouring some of the themes of the original story.

[Boromir88]

Thank you KingODuckingham I look forward to following along and hopefully join in a re-watching of the trilogy to contribute as well. I don't think I've seen them 75 times, but it has been quite a lot as well. And I'll try to stick to the same points you've laid out. It shouldn't be too difficult for me, because in the same way as you, I'm in no a way a technical film expert. I watch movies first and foremost to have a few hours of respite from real life. A "good" movie, in my opinion, is usually one that is character driven that has developed story arcs.

Again thank you and I look forward to following along. :)

[Marceline]

*makes popcorn* I'm excited to follow this thread, KingODuckingHam. All universal signs are pointing me toward a rewatch of the EE movies, so I'm looking forward to your thoughts as the movies are fresh in my mind.

[Dimcairien Luiniel]

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts as well Ducky. I'm certain that this will be a very informative and thoughtful thread. While I have not seen them as many times as you, I've certainly seen the trilogy more times than most movies, which says something about the movie as entertainment and the story as a whole. And I love that you brought Aristotle into this conversation. He always makes things more interesting.

[KingODuckingham]

Thank you for your encouraging comments. I have a feeling this is going to take me quite some time and it is heartening to know someone besides myself will read it, although I would probably do it anyway. Let's dive in!

The Opening Narration, roughly 0:00-07:40 timestamp

There's already a lot going on, from minute one. Though this trilogy is long, every moment (or nearly so) of it is purposeful. Let's begin by considering the boldness of the very opening. There have been many fantasy and sci-fi movies over the years that open with a woman narrating some backstory critical to understanding the universe. It has not always been executed well, in fact I would venture to say that more often than not it is off-putting. Rhetoric and Writing teachers the world over tell their students that introductions need to grab your attention, and a text crawl or narration does not necessarily seem like the best way to do it. The lines have not aged well either; "the world is changed" sounds laughably cliche on the ear after the glut of superhero movies over the last two decades. As if that weren't enough, there's whispering in some foreign language (of course WE know what it is, but for a movie whose audience included many, many non-book readers, this I feel must have been strange). The narration is really pretty long too. While there are awesome visuals, there's no real action until the armies appear on screen nearly two and a half minutes in. Also, there's apparently a place called Mount Doom? Seems pretty corny. Is the bad guy Doctor Doom? (o wait)

I say all this not because I dislike the opening; quite the contrary, personally. It does introduce right away to us the tension in the movie-making process when dealing with a beloved property, though. How to balance those familiar with the source material with those who are not? If you assume things, will your audience be lost, and if you explain things, will your audience be bored?

FOTR solves some of this with one of its greatest strengths: the cast. Cate Blanchett, with nothing more than the power of her voice, carries us through what has the potential to be a boring sequence. She nails the pace, tone, and of course her character that appears again later. (more on that in a minute) Some of the solution is in the music. Some is in the already-brilliant costuming and characterization. I think especially here of the haunting scene of the nine kings--that lingering shot of the man in the middle sticks in our memory later when he also reappears. The use of the map delights us fanboys and girls, and also gives the less-in-tune audience a brief glimpse of what they need to know: that Mordor is a place, and a bad place. And some is in pacing: the narration leads directly into the biggest action (in a sense) of the entire movie, so that we are not getting the backstory simply through exposition, but through powerful visuals.

Connected with these technically brilliant pieces are some foreshadowing lines. Almost every important bit of the opening narration here reappears later in the film, so that when it does the audience (theoretically at least) isn't totally lost. A short list: Galadriel, the Ring, Mordor, the Nine, the general idea of the races of Elves, Dwarves, and Men (and orcs), Sauron (in name), Elrond, Isildur, Gollum, the fiery script on the Ring itself, and the powers of the Ring, especially invisibility. That is quite a bit packed into just seven minutes (and my list wasn't even exhaustive). Set up, paid off.

Let us consider the visuals of the battle. I said in the first post that movies are a visual medium, and in this opening action scene there is a lot of visual storytelling going on underneath the continued narration. I will list only some basics. First, color. The colors are muted and subtle, but essentially we have Men dressed in sable and silver, Elves dressed in brassy golden colors, and the forces of Sauron arrayed in black. Everyone knows without needing to be told that gold and silver are good, and shadowy dark is bad. While throughout the movie is realistically dirty, gritty in the best way, the orcs are misshapen, tattooed, overly pierced in strange places, generally spiky, and far far dirtier than their good counterparts. Second, we are shown right away that the Men and Elves are practicing tight, well-coordinated archery tactics, as well as being formed in close-knit, silent, steady ranks. They are extraordinarily well-disciplined. The orcs, on the other hand, are a mob. No shot better portrays the contrast than the Elven swordsmen domino-slicing the charging rabble of orcs as it reaches them (and not a one stepping out to get a kill early). We will wish later that such soldiers were at Helm's Deep or Minas Tirith! The point again, though, is that the good guys are displayed with positive qualities and the bad guys have negative ones: order contrasted with chaos. Whether this is accurate to how the Last Alliance actually fought matters little from a narrative perspective. What matters is keying the audience into the basics, even those who have next to no idea what is going on. Once this is established, then you can move to the cameos of Gil-galad and Elendil, and allow the battle to feel like it is dissolving into chaos by providing some kill shots.

Some smaller observations, mostly because I don't have the expertise to explain the impressions.
The music is incredible all the way through. I will try not to repeat that too much because I can't elaborate in any lucid way, but it is beautiful and functional both. What may have looked corny on its own is elevated by powerful audio.
The shots from behind Sauron's head are clever; we get to look down with him on the puny Free Folk and realize visually just how strong he is. His size, by the by, is another visual technique. We all instinctively know that bigger is stronger. That Sauron towers over everyone else on the battlefield communicates this in a way that wearing the Ring alone does not (though we wish it might). Again, whether Sauron in canon were so tall is of no concern at all--the movie has no time to worry about subtleties. This is, after all, just backstory, and Sauron will never again appear in physical form throughout the trilogy.
Sauron's "death" scene is weird. I like that his finger crumbles in Isildur's hand afterward, because it kind of shows us that the Ring is somehow a sustainer of his physical form, but the weird glowing light explosion that knocks everyone over? I'm not sure what's going on. It kind of reminds me of the gratuitous car explosions in 70's and 80's action movies.
I don't like the camera blurring and wonky CGI or whatever it is during the ambush scene. I DO like the sense of confusion that the camera is creating, but the blurring just makes it look like my screen is lagging--that may be a technology issue? And then when Isildur goes to put the Ring on...he doesn't actually look like he's in the scene. Can someone confirm this for me? It's just for that one shot.
I love the way they "show" the invisible person's movement throughout this trilogy. Art through negative space, just brilliant.

Okay, two more things, very closely related. The two big storyboards of this entire trilogy are also introduced in this opening 7 minutes.
One is the story of Men, and one is the story of Hobbits. These two threads are the most important reason this entire sequence was put into the movie at all. While the Ring is almost a character unto itself, it really is just a MacGuffin-y symbol, and how Men and Hobbits interact with the Ring is most of the point of the whole story (at least of FOTR. Again, more later). While we are tempted to be distracted by the heroes and their big action set-pieces, we are also insistently and explicitly confronted with the evil of Men, and their corruption. Much like in the books, Isildur becomes a powerful symbol of these traits. The movie, however, is going to return over and over to this theme because Aragorn is the heir of Isildur. His whole arc in these movies will be overcoming this legacy of weakness, as a king and as a Man. Whether this is a good or a bad thing remains to be discussed in full later. Hobbits, on the other hand, just as you might expect, slip in at the last moments of this opening, and Bilbo is described as "the most unlikely creature imaginable". This will be our other powerful theme for the trilogy: that little folk can and will do things you might never expect, and in so doing, confound the plans of even the most wise and powerful (like the Ring itself!).

We get one last neat little visual trick: right after Hobbits are mentioned, the map swings over to Hobbiton. Even the simplest among us understand that Hobbits live in Hobbiton. We are leaving the narrative of heroes and villains and joining an unlikely group of little folk.

[Lirimaer]

I do love the opening too. I love the gravitas of her voice and you're right, she pitches it perfectly for tone and pacing. A ton of backstory (and a taster for those who actually love to read 'behind the scenes') which perfectly establishes that all is not well, despite every appearance of looking fine in the here-and-now.

And some things, that should not have been forgotten, were lost. Truer words ...

[Boromir88]

Thank you KingODuckingham, if I remember when I've watched the EE commentaries before, the studio was against this "Prologue" to begin the film.

I think it worked so well to get across the necessary information/what is this movie about to the audience who had not read the books, yet still not bore those who had. When I first watched FOTR in theaters I had read Fellowship of the Ring Book I. I might have been 14 then, I think. My dad said it was a lengthy novel and so I should at least start reading it before seeing the movie. I knew the general idea of the story, but was by no means an expert so having that Prologue really captured the feeling "this is Middle-earth/Lord of the Rings."

I think the success of the Prologue scene started a trend for Jackson to begin all his films with a "flash back" scene to bring the audience back to Middle-earth at the start of each movie. Personally, it's what put me off of The Hobbit right away, the "flash back" in An Unexpected Journey was not nearly as good as FOTR, but I suspect you want to keep this on FOTR.

I don't like the camera blurring and wonky CGI or whatever it is during the ambush scene. I DO like the sense of confusion that the camera is creating, but the blurring just makes it look like my screen is lagging--that may be a technology issue? And then when Isildur goes to put the Ring on...he doesn't actually look like he's in the scene. Can someone confirm this for me? It's just for that one shot.

No I get that blurring of shots too. I think it was an intended effect by Jackson to fit the "chaos" of the situation. I recall other times he does the blurry effect (usually when Frodo puts on the Ring) but I don't think it was ever to the extent that it was during Isildur's ambush.

[KingODuckingham]

Concerning Hobbits, time stamp roughly 07:40-10:22

A shorter post for a shorter set-piece, because I want to highlight how important I believe this particular decision was for the success of the movie's narrative power.

First, another cast member highlight: Sir Ian Holm. One of the great casting choices of this movie, like multiple members of the cast, he is a Shakespearean trained actor first, and moved to film afterwards. The difference this makes in his ability to record believable, realistic-sounding Tolkien dialogue is so huge, and allows the movie to keep large chunks of original writing from the book in the movie without it sounding awkward or clunky to the modern ear. His narration of hobbit-life is so engaging, heartwarming, and beautiful.

Second, the variety and authenticity of the shots themselves. We are all likely familiar with the amount of work and dedication that went into building what amounts to a real little village in New Zealand for the Shire. Not needing to rely on green-screens but instead relying on the good green earth immediately makes this fantasy world we've been hearing about for the first few minutes seem very real. The people look real, the sets look real, the animals and produce look real...and they are!

Third, the introduction of the Shire theme in the soundtrack. This theme being firmly established so early in the film is critical because when it comes back later in very alien and scary moments it will have a very great impact.

Fourth, there's a ton of the good kind of fanservice in this sequence, where book-readers get to squeal "Things I know!" but without it derailing or delaying the plot, or feeling like it was out of place. Indeed, it feels IN place. I won't make a list because I feel I'd be preaching to the choir here.

Fifth, and as I consider, most importantly, the time and care devoted to the Shire allows the entire story to work. Fairy tales are a tricky beast, and it would have been easy to miss one of three elements I consider this scene to encapsulate. I will attempt to list these three elements by way of quoting three different authors, writing about various aspects of fairy tales. First, from Tolkien himself, in his essay "On Fairy-stories":

"since the fairy-story deals with 'marvels', it cannot tolerate any frame or machinery suggesting that the whole framework in which they occur is a figment or illusion"

The realism that I mentioned back up in point two is not the whole meaning of this quote, but for a visual medium, it is a large part of the meaning. For the fantastical elements to have their proper effect, it is critical that we be dragged out of immersion as little as possible. Good, literally solid sets, actors, costumes, and props help accomplish this goal.

Secondly, from an essay by C.S. Lewis titled "On Science Fiction":

" Every good writer knows that the more unusual the scenes and events of his story are, the slighter, the more ordinary, the more typical his persons should be. Hence Gulliver is a commonplace little man and Alice a commonplace little girl. If they had been more remarkable they would have wrecked their books. The Ancient Mariner himself is a very ordinary man. To tell how odd things struck odd people is to have an oddity too much: he who is to see strange sights must not himself be strange. He ought to be as nearly as possible Everyman or Anyman. Of course, we must not confuse slight or typical characterization with impossible or unconvincing characterization. Falsification of character will always spoil a story. But character can apparently be reduced, simplified, to almost any extent with wholly satisfactory results. The greater ballads are an instance."

The hobbits in general, and Frodo and Sam in particular later, fulfill this role for us. Even though they are not themselves Men in the racial sense, their 'simple life' with food, drink, pipeweed, and growing things appeals to the commoner in all of us, and by contrast will help us see how great the larger-than-life characters like Gandalf, Aragorn, and even Boromir are later. And when Frodo and Sam rise to the occasion and take their place amongst such heroes, we will all have learned a valuable lesson, while not forgetting our place. Good actors also, as I mentioned above, will help make sure that the characterization is not 'impossible or unconvincing'.

Thirdly, from G.K Chesterton's book "Orthodoxy", in the chapter The Ethics of Elf-land:

"This elementary wonder, however, is not a mere fancy derived from the fairy tales; on the contrary, all the fire of the fairy tales is derived from this. Just as we all like love tales because there is an instinct of sex, we all like astonishing tales because they touch the nerve of the ancient instinct of astonishment. This is proved by the fact that when we are very young children we do not need fairy tales: we only need tales. Mere life is interesting enough. A child of seven is excited by being told that Tommy opened a door and saw a dragon. But a child of three is excited by being told that Tommy opened a door."

This quote reminds me of Sam. From stopping in bewilderment at the idea of taking the farthest step from home he's ever been (which can only have been a few miles) in FOTR, to being astonished and excited by the Oliphaunts in Ithilien, Sam conveys a sense of child-like wonder that a good fairy-tale produces even in the most adult. All the fire of this fairy-tale comes from the fact that Sam grows things in Hobbiton at 10:00 exactly into the movie, and comes back at the very end of ROTK. That perhaps his greatest challenge is not facing the plains of Mordor but working up the courage to ask Rosie for a dance.

Fairy tales remind us through their astonishing events that life itself is astonishing. Seeing an oliphaunt reminds us that elephants are amazing. Seeing Shadowfax reminds us that horses are beautiful, magnificent creatures. Seeing Gandalf light up his staff reminds us that our parents can pull coins from behind our ears and we have no idea how they did it (or that they bought a house and paid for college--even more magical!) Seeing the Ringwraiths reminds us that there are evil people who would see us dead for the sake of power. Seeing Arwen and Aragorn reminds us that love really can cross boundaries some never thought appropriate or even possible. And so on.

That the Shire is firmly established as real, hobbits are firmly established as quaint, everyday folk, and that they delight in the the simple things of life, pays huge dividends for this story to 1) capture Tolkien's vision and 2) be a successful fairy-story. C.S. Lewis also is famous for once saying:

"When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty, I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."

I feel a bit of the truth of this as I age (not that I am anywhere near 50 yet!) and take more and more delight in the simple scenes of Hobbiton at the beginning of FOTR.

[Dwim]

Great posts KingODuckingham. As a hobbit at heart (well, I guess we all are), your post on Concerning Hobbits was a pleasure to read.

I like how you focused on the subliminal effect of detailing Shire life as very simple and ordinary. The effect this scene has later on is also seen with both Merry and Pippin on their different paths. Yes, their own adventures were very out of the ordinary (just like Frodo and Sam's were). But so too are the societies they find themselves suddenly integrating into - the Rohirrim for Merry and Minas Tirith for Pippin - and of course they look very out of place amongst both, which really gives us a sense of their bravery as we watch those scenes.

[Boromir88]

KingODuckingham

That the Shire is firmly established as real, hobbits are firmly established as quaint, everyday folk, and that they delight in the the simple things of life, pays huge dividends for this story to 1) capture Tolkien's vision and 2) be a successful fairy-story. C.S. Lewis also is famous for once saying

I know a lot of this is going to be on when I first read the books until now, but bear with me for a bit. (You know when texting the 2 different types of responses...the rapid fire of quick 1 word answers or the long block paragraphs of texts? I'm the latter. )

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I had read Book I, before seeing FOTR in theaters. I was 14 at the time and after watching FOTR I decided I was going to read the rest of The Lord of the Rings. I finished it before seeing TTT come out in theaters. As a 14 year old, first time reader, and after seeing FOTR for the first time, I was not very much like a hobbit at all. I liked Boromir and Gimli, and later Theoden. I liked heroism and warriors and being drawn into the marvels and magic of a fantasy creation. I still very much enjoyed The Lord of the Rings, because it gripped me and I needed to see how the story ended, but as a 14 year old I was someone who did not connect to the hobbits or hobbit life.

A couple years ago I bought a house, but for work it was roughly 50 hours a week and it required traveling a lot. It got to be I was at a hotel close about 10 days every month. That was when I did my latest re-read of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, and this time I really connected with Bilbo. Since I was often away and in hotels every month, I couldn't get out of my head Bilbo's feelings of "wow, I miss my books. my armchair." I don't even have an "armchair." That feeling of home and comfort made me connect to Bilbo and hobbit life.

And that is probably the first time I thought of the Lord of the Rings as a tale of "There and Back again." "There" - home, every day ordinary life is clearly established. We connect with our hobbit protagonists as they're pulled away from home and into a world of marvels, terror, magic, myth...then we come full circle and are "back again." It's also when I realized what Tolkien meant by saying in the Foreward that The Scouring was an "essential part of the plot." We have to return home with our hobbits, how has their home changed? How have they changed?

There we have it. I write all that just to say that I concur the Concerning Hobbits scene in the movie did precisely that as well. From the setting, to the characters, to the simple and ordinary tone Ian Holm sets. The Shire is home. Hobbits are ordinary and we're all about to be pulled on a tale of marvel, faerie, myth, terror...etc

[Joel Cotton]

Thanks for this, KingODuckingham! I first saw FotR in college as my friends had hosted a dinner and movie night at their place, and the EE had just been released (So, about November 2002). I had never heard of the books, had seen some of the trailers for the movie and didn't think anything of it, so this was my very first foray into the world of Middle Earth. And it sucked me in. I remember (and I know you'll get to this much later on) when the movie ended on that slight cliffhanger, going "What! Where's the rest?" - I don't recall seeing anything that continued in a series of movies like this before, either. It was thrilling, and it began my thirst to know more (which I would see TTT the following month in theaters), and the rest as they say is history. Hooked and here I am! *g*

[KingODuckingham]

Important character introductions, time stamp 10:22-24:00

Much of what I talked about in the previous post continues to apply here, but I won't repeat myself, for the sake of brevity. I want to talk instead about some more of the casting and character decisions, as almost half the Fellowship makes their first appearance in this segment.

Sir Ian Mckellen as Gandalf: What a brilliant casting choice. He captures the essence, I think, of Gandalf's character, especially in FOTR. I talked in the first post about the debt owed to the source material, and I'll be talking a lot about it when it comes to casting. But first, let me mention that the look of Gandalf is near perfect--the costume, the staff, even the eyebrows are picture perfect. Gandalf is not the easiest character to portray, I think. He is complex. We see in these first scenes with him, in rough order:
1) He can seem serious, but has a sense of humor.
2) He loves hobbits.
3) He loves entertaining hobbits and their children (are they so different to him, one wonders?)
4) He has had a curious effect on Bilbo (of course, the book readers know all about this, but movie-only folk are made curious)
5) He has a way of appearing unexpectedly. This is told through a very subtle visual gag that is played off as nearly a joke, but is actually quite important to his character, when Bilbo is asking him about drinks, loses track of Gandalf, and trails off, only for Gandalf to reappear behind him...somehow.
6) He can be stern.
Very soon, we will discover that he his sternness can turn terrifying in a moment, although we do not know that yet. At no time does any aspect of Gandalf appear anything less than totally convincing in this performance. In addition, as I mentioned when talking about Bilbo, the transition of book dialogue onto the screen, which happens very often in this part of the movie, is portrayed so naturally by these skilled theater actors. I think the importance of this cannot be overstated. We will see later some of the less-skilled, younger actors have trouble with this very thing later in the trilogy. In fact, speaking of younger actors:

Elijah Wood as Frodo: Elijah Wood is a good actor, both in this trilogy and in general. That said, I cannot help but think Frodo is the most mis-cast of all the Fellowship. For Frodo to be the same age as Merry and Pippin (as far as we can tell as movie-viewers, I mean; I'm not talking here about the actual actors' ages) is just wrong. I do not say this just because "haha different than book is bad", but because the wisdom and solemnity with which Frodo is portrayed in the books, particularly in contrast to Pippin, is actually something I consider essential to the character. Frodo needed to be someone who appeared to be about the same age, I think, as Sam. Thus, this is less a slam on Elijah, who cannot help being the age that he is and was, but rather a discrepancy in the vision of who Frodo was supposed to be and what he was like. Frodo is not, as the movie seems to portray, some YAL novel protagonist, turned 18 and just leaving home on a grand adventure. This discrepancy will be heightened when Frodo does not age at all between party and the leaving of the Shire. It will cause problems for Frodo's characterization throughout the movies, not so much because they have Frodo behave out of character from the books but more because Elijah Wood at that young age cannot effectively portray the carriage and gravitas of someone twice his age. To expect such a thing would be absurd. Ah well, it could have been much worse with a less-competent actor of the same age. Elijah did his best.

Sean Astin as Samwise Gamgee: Sam reappears at 20:20, and is named for the first time while staring at Rosie. I won't say all the good things about this performance just yet, since we don't really see much of his true character in this scene. Mostly all we learn is that he has a love interest, and is nervous about talking to her (relatable). I think this was established early in order to offset even some of the inevitable comments later after he spends most of the trilogy in the company only of Frodo. Perhaps that is cynical. Nevertheless, introducing Rosie is important for other reasons, since she and Sam are the last characters on screen for the whole trilogy. In a way, she and Sam represent the life everyone in the Free Peoples is fighting for. Anyway, suffice to say for now that Sean Astin is brilliant as Sam, and is the best hobbit portrayal in all LOTR.

Dominic Monaghan as Merry and Billy Boyd as Pippin: I will put these two together, since the movie also goes out of its way to lump them together. Merry and Pippin the books are introduced separately and are pretty different characters; indeed, the contrast between them becomes apparent almost immediately after Merry joins the story. But the movie has limited time to handle its large ensemble cast, and in both the books and the movies, these two are hardly the most important of those characters. It is understandable that the movie basically collapses Merry's character into Pippin's (I know, I know, not entirely. We'll talk about that when we get there). They are introduced together pulling a ridiculous prank and getting punished for it together. In a way, the collapse of their characters together almost works in the movie's favor, since it allows the two their own little arcs for character growth. I don't think that potential was fully explored in this trilogy (again, I'm getting ahead of myself), but it was explored. Overall, I think the movie did nearly all it could with the time and space that it had. More importantly for the topic at hand, I think Dominic and Billy had incredible chemistry and were very believable as a pair of inseparable rascals, which was critical to the success of these two comic-relief-y characters.

And on that note, I'd like to take a moment to mention that the comic relief in FOTR is the best of the trilogy, because it relies almost entirely upon hobbits, who are most naturally suited for it. Any time the comedy moves into the other characters, it feels ruinous and out of place. But all of the goofiness and innocent optimism of the hobbits is well-placed and feels very natural, so I'm glad they had actors well suited for the task.

Next post I will talk about the Speech! And about the subsequent re-introduction of the Ring (and its debilitating effects) and how they are portrayed by the movie.

[Dimcairien Luiniel]

I love Sir Ian McKellen. He IS Gandalf. The scenes with Gandalf and Bilbo were the first bits of FOTR I ever saw as my parents let me see that bit when I was about 9 or 10 beacuse I had read the Hobbit.

If I remember right, Elijah Wood was only about 18 or 19 when he got the role. And yes, it does bother me that it seems hardly any time passes between the Party and leaving the Shire. Even the animated version managed to include the 50 years. In the movie, it had to at least have been several weeks though, considering the distance from Hobbiton to Minas Tirith, but yes, Frodo's character lost a lot without those years of growing up.

When I first saw FOTR, I couldn't even tell Merry and Pippin apart on screen, their characters were so lumped together, and I had already read the first book, so I knew they were different.

[Boromir88]

I think the Bilbo-Gandalf scenes are my favorite in FOTR (at least favorites scenes that don't have a lot of gripping suspense/thrills). It's a subtle build up of tension underneath the surface. Played extremely well by the 2 Ians from "You haven't aged a tad" to Bilbo "needing a holiday." In this scene and then in a few minutes when Gandalf confronts Bilbo about the Ring, a lot of the camera shots you just don't see in major modern films anymore. A lot of close-ups on the actors, a lot of shots with just one of them in the frame, talking and we can see their expressions. It just works really well (it's what I miss the most in modern movies) and you miss a lot of that personal connection in The Hobbit films. No wonder why Ian McKellan had a break down on set during the Unexpected Party scene because he was reading lines to CGI dwarves, and not another marvelous theater actor like Ian Holm.

One thing I did not think fit very well (and a lot of it probably has to do with Frodo's extremely young age) is when Frodo sees Gandalf he jumps into the cart and hugs him. I expect the Gandalf-Bilbo connection it's a warm and joyful feeling. Frodo glomping Gandalf is out of place. It's established it's been a while since Gandalf was last in the Shire, and maybe Frodo has heard a lot about Gandalf from Bilbo's tales, but the over-enthusiastic "GANDALF!" doesn't fit with the portrayed young Frodo. I get why the movie had those 2 main characters meet then.

The party scenes are great. I really love Bilbo telling the hobbit children about his encounter with the trolls and it establishes Bilbo as a fascinating, captivating story teller! And the firework dragon, even a simple line of "nonsense there hasn't been a dragon in these parts for 1000 years" fits so well with Bilbo's character.

I figured they couldn't film the 'conspiracy' part of the book, where Merry stands out as the main conspirator. So I don't have issues with introducing Merry and Pippin in a different way. I do wish Merry was a little more level-headed, especially with Frodo being portrayed so young. Merry's the calmer driving force to get Frodo to safety and out of the Shire. I think at this point, I'll have to re-watch the movie to see how Merry's portrayed as the hobbits flee from the Shire.

[Oak]

Ian McKellen did an outstanding job of portraying Gandalf. The makeup was suburb. He was wise but and the same time could be stern and even intimidating if the occasion required it. I liked the scene where he seemed to loom as the room grew dark.

[FireroseArien]

Just caught up on this thread, and @KingODuckingham , I'm immensely enjoying your analysis so far and feel myself agreeing with the greater part of it. I just re-watched the trilogy two days ago so it's currently fresh in my mind.

I think Ian McKellan as Gandalf was definitely one of the best casting decisions they could have made, as was Sean Astin as Sam, although I'm so used to Elijah Wood as Frodo now it's hard to think of an actor I'd rather see in that role .

And I do think that the prologue of the series is iconic - I marathon the movies every New Year's as my ritual, and usually post a screenshot of the prologue, no matter what part of the prologue I take, it's instantly recognizable as to what movie(s) I am watching. Would it hold up if it was released today? I'm not so sure. But for the time it was legendary, and I remember being utterly blown away when I saw it in the theater..

[Marceline]

Ducky! Ahh! I am woefully behind and catching up. I can't possibly reply to everything you wrote that warrants discussion but here are a few things. Looking forward to reading more!

Cate Blanchett, with nothing more than the power of her voice, carries us through what has the potential to be a boring sequence. She nails the pace, tone, and of course her character that appears again later.

I love her narration of the opening! I have a theory (probably something that others have noticed?) that a couple of her lines in Thor: Ragnarok contain direct callbacks to this opening scene. At the very least, she has some lines with phrases that she delivers almost exactly the same as in her opening narration in FotR.

While the Ring is almost a character unto itself, it really is just a MacGuffin-y symbol, and how Men and Hobbits interact with the Ring is most of the point of the whole story (at least of FOTR. Again, more later).

Just want to say that I appreciate this analysis a lot.

Third, the introduction of the Shire theme in the soundtrack. This theme being firmly established so early in the film is critical because when it comes back later in very alien and scary moments it will have a very great impact.

The weaving of this theme throughout the soundtrack is a wonderful thing. I think the music echoes a bit of your analysis of the hobbits' role in framing wonder and fantasy for us, offering some familiar grounding and a frame through which to view and transition into the fantastic.

I think Dominic and Billy had incredible chemistry and were very believable as a pair of inseparable rascals, which was critical to the success of these two comic-relief-y characters.

And on that note, I'd like to take a moment to mention that the comic relief in FOTR is the best of the trilogy, because it relies almost entirely upon hobbits, who are most naturally suited for it. Any time the comedy moves into the other characters, it feels ruinous and out of place. But all of the goofiness and innocent optimism of the hobbits is well-placed and feels very natural, so I'm glad they had actors well suited for the task.

Ahh I so agree with all of this. I love Dom and Billy's friendship and the chemistry that came out of that. I also felt that Gimli's humor was a bit off and out of place as it gained more time (particularly in TTT - interested to hear what you think of that as you progress through the movies).

[Nia]

When I have a bit more time, I am going to give a proper response to all the very many things I completely and whole-heartedly agree with here - many of which are thoughts I think I've probably struggled to know exactly how to express myself, and which you have so far done incredibly eloquently. But I just wanted to let you know I have been following this thread with avid interest, and thank you!

[MistressofJesters]

I'm really enjoying this so far! My opinions about the films have changed pretty drastically since I first saw them (I was around the same age as @KingODuckingham when they came out in theatres and I loved them then, and now I...don't, heh. )And I had read the books before. But one thing I do still like about them is the "feel" - the scenery, the costuming, and the music all fit. I think most of the casting was excellent. My main issues have to do with changes to the narrative and character arcs that alter the meaning of the story.

I definitely think that changing the medium is going to mean changing some things (and I have a big appreciation for film as a storytelling medium as it is), but I also get the sense that even while well-intentioned, there's a pretty significant lack of understanding from the filmmakers. I think a lot of people think of LotR as a fairly flat, two-dimensional story - brilliant and groundbreaking in its worldbuilding, sure, but otherwise shallow or overly simple - that's a common criticism even among certain *ahem* popular contemporary fantasy authors, and I always wonder if they're reading the same books I am. But the movies I think suffer from the same perspective. Tolkien wasn't just a guy who really liked medieval lit and languages and the pre-industrial English countryside, but I think that's largely how he's viewed, and the films unfortunately reflect that at parts.

[Mojo]

I'll catch up with some deeper thoughts in a bit, but just wanted to add this fun little anecdote - we had some friends over for dinner last week and their 9-year old son had just finished reading the books and watching the movies. Their dad had told him to come to me with any questions about LOTR (giant surprise I'm kinda known as the LOTR nerd in my friend group). At any rate, the first question he asked me was "Why did they take Tom Bombadil out of the movies? That was one of the best parts of the book!" This gave me a good chuckle.

[Androthelm]

In addition, as I mentioned when talking about Bilbo, the transition of book dialogue onto the screen, which happens very often in this part of the movie, is portrayed so naturally by these skilled theater actors. I think the importance of this cannot be overstated.

This is, if I can throw in a response on a post some weeks old now, one of the things which I appreciate the most about the Movie Trilogy. Say what you want about lines and characterizations are changed -- they seem also to know exactly when and who in the cast will be able to carry the (often, much as I may love it, substantially dated) dialogue from the original books when put on-screen word for (mostly) word. The conversations between Bilbo and Gandalf are, I think, one of the best example of this.

For Frodo to be the same age as Merry and Pippin (as far as we can tell as movie-viewers, I mean; I'm not talking here about the actual actors' ages) is just wrong.

This (and also what you go on to say about this) is very aptly put, and goes on, I think, to become one of the primary Hobbit-troubles in this movie: There is not enough to distinguish the Hobbits among each other. Sure, there is some degree of personality difference -- Frodo is solemn and Sam is hard-working and Merry and Pippin are playful pranksters (who are, in turn, far less distinct from each other than they were in the books), but in making the Hobbits broadly peers a lot of the nuance (especially between Frodo, Pippin, and Merry who are all of the "Shire gentry" as it were and who stand out more when compared to Sam) is lost.

More importantly for the topic at hand, I think Dominic and Billy had incredible chemistry and were very believable as a pair of inseparable rascals, which was critical to the success of these two comic-relief-y characters.

This sums up my feelings as well on many of the comical or semi-comical additions to the series: They are played out very well by the cast (not just the Hobbits, but John Rhys-Davies as well, although that is yet to come) and truly are a result of attempting to develop a very long and broadly serious (although occasionally very funny!) book to a shorter, denser, and faster-paced medium.

[KingODuckingham]

Thank you all for commenting I have read everything and greatly enjoyed your complementary perspectives that broaden my own. It's invigorating! I had to take a rather substantial mental break when my new baby was born but, like the Fellowship, I cannot stay in Rivendell forever. Back to adventure!

The Speech and subsequent departure of Bilbo, time stamp 24:00-29:58 (roughly)

I have been itching to talk about this speech. It's such a good microcosm of my problems with the dialogue in the trilogy in general, and the first big example of the jarring shifts I mentioned being an issue way back in my first post. We start off with brilliance, also known as something straight from the books: a bunch of happy, mostly full (of food AND drink) hobbits yelling speech! and Ian Holm delivering an incredible rendition of the hobbit names and hilarious Bilbo "joke" (or whatever that's supposed to be lol). They even kept the Proudfeet moment, which was set off by a fantastic low-angle shot of the huge hairy feet of the Proudfoot patriarch. The cake with over 100 candles is center-stage in the scene, and the audience reactions are ON POINT.

But just before the 25:00 mark things fall apart, as the script-writers apparently said to themselves, "Well, movie pacing requires us to keep going, we can't keep the whole speech from the book in our movie." Fair enough. But as often happens in this trilogy, when they deviate from their own script (that is, the book) and begin to make things up, it's just...low quality. The difference between a line written by someone that worked on the movie versus Tolkien is so glaringly obvious, even when a good actor is saying both of them. And in some cases, like this one, the plot consistency suffers as well, not just the dialogue quality (or in this case, monologue quality). Instead of simply cutting down the rest of the speech but keeping the near-word for word style, Bilbo suddenly trails off and starts mumbling under his breath, and goes rigid. He says, "I have things to do.", a total throwaway. He awkwardly grabs the ring in front of everyone, although we are apparently supposed to believe nobody except maybe Gandalf spotted it. And then he vanishes, without the flash of light because I guess movie Gandalf doesn't care enough to do that. My concern here is not merely the difference in detail from the book but that these were necessary details for the characters to be consistent. If Bilbo has planned this disappearance, then he ought to act the way book Bilbo does: with his vanishing built into his speech, which he had also planned. Movie Bilbo looks like he suddenly decided on the spot, even though the movie already showed us that he has it planned! Movie Gandalf should also be prepared, but they cut to him seeming (in my eyes) surprised, and is more concerned with grabbing hobbit pranksters than covering up magic ring usage. Decidedly out of character for both of them. And really, you couldn't think of any better way to sum up the rest of Bilbo's speech in the book than "I have things to do.." Ugh.

It's okay though, the whole conversation with Bilbo and Gandalf that immediately follows is more than enough to make up for it. Everything from the close, careful shots following the Ring so that we know exactly where it is at all times, to the delightfully delivered dialogue by two of the best actors possible, to Gandalf surprising Bilbo again with a sudden appearance at the mantle (already a callback at this point, since it's the 2nd time he's done it), to the careful special effects of Gandalf's almost-transformation...it's all genius. Here the dialogue is better adapted too--while it's not word-for-word from the book, much of it is nearly identical or well-summarized rather than being script vomit.

I shan't gush about everything or this post would go on too long, but I want to point out Ian Holm's facial acting in this scene as being particularly good. Stage actors aren't always trained the same as movie actors--the latter have the camera shoved much closer into their face and are expected to have different layers of emoting and detail than someone who is 15 feet away from the nearest audience member down in the seats. Ian's face is the focus of some very important moments that tell us audience a lot about the corrupting power and nature of this Ring that he is holding--again, a callback already within the movie thanks to Isildur--and we get a sense of Bilbo's sudden temper without it seeming out of character the way his babbling did a minute ago. That is more difficult to pull off than perhaps it looks.

The Gandalf transformation is also, on the whole, quite well done. I think this sort of scene is one movie adaptations in general struggle with a lot. What I mean by "this sort of scene" is one in which, in a book, what is being described is mostly a matter of the character's perspective, rather than something physical, yet movies cannot get us into actors' heads and eyes so they rely on something physical on the screen. Gandalf appears -to Bilbo- at this moment as seeming taller, darker, scarier, etc. Yet, likely, he is not -actually- those things. For that to be pulled off on screen, even if I don't think it was done perfectly, is still impressive. I think if I had a nitpick, Bilbo's sleeve or coat or whatever appears to flutter, as if in a sudden gust of wind, and I wish that detail were not there, since wind WOULD imply something physical happening. The rest of it, while it might be done better, I am not sure myself how.

I love the hug they share right BEFORE Gandalf says "All these long years we've been friends" An excellent case of showing, then telling, even in a minor way. Contrast with, say, Obi-wan and Anakin awkwardly talking about their great friendship in an elevator.

I love the insistent way Gandalf says "Bilboo" right before Bilbo tries to walk out the door with the Ring still in tow.

I love the trembling visible in Bilbo's blurry hand while the camera is in sharp focus on his determined face in a super-low-angle shot.

I love the heavy thud of the Ring as it hits the ground when Bilbo drops it. Truly a weight off of him!

I love the very slight second thoughts Bilbo has as we cut to the outdoors, followed by near-instant relief.

And I love Gandalf's delayed "until our next meeting" that gives us the promise of seeing Bilbo again, followed by a cut to black which is really the shadow of the door about to open, back on the Ring. It tells us that, in a way, we've had this first twenty minutes to watch the end of Bilbo's story, and now the real story begins: the story of Frodo. None of this is said out loud, it is told visually, subtly.

Neither is the most important lesson stated, the lesson that is the reason we were given these twenty minutes that in a more traditionally structured movie narrative might seem a total waste: Bilbo gave up the Ring of his own accord. Gandalf, as you know, explains the importance of this in the books, but it is left unsaid in the movie. That does not make it less important. We are shown, up front, that where the race of Men failed in Isildur, this dumpy little old hobbit named Bilbo succeeded. The greed, lust, and pride that besets Men is overcome by the celebration of a simple life, as Bilbo narrated to us at the beginning, and reminded us at the end: "And he lived happily ever after, to the end of his days." What Ring, what power, what beautiful valuable object could be more precious than that? To live happily ever after? It is what we all truly seek, and Bilbo gives us a glimpse of how to achieve it: give up those material things we think we want, we think make us happy, but actually drag us down and corrupt us.

Holy Shire I love this movie.

[Boromir88]

Congratulations on the newborn @KingODuckingham !

Thank you for coming back, as well, I was hoping this thread wouldn't die out. Your opinions about the movies are interesting and insightful. It's rare to find people with a fair and open mind these days.

Gandalf and Bilbo debating the Ring are among my favorite scenes from all the movies. I think it was Ian McKellan who remarked in the EE commentaries this was the first time he's worked with Ian Holm. McKellan said every time they shot for a scene, Ian Holm would give a slightly different interpretation of his lines. He wanted to provide a "collage of Bilbo" for Jackson to choose from. McKellan and Christopher Lee both said it was interesting to witness Holm showing a different Bilbo every take. Sounded like an interesting approach to acting, instead of "ok 2-3 takes, this is how you should read your lines. That's it, Move on to the next scene"

I agree about the speech and the mumbling off. The famous "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like..." is what I think threw it off. Movie-Bilbo acted surprised/put off that he wasn't applauded for the compliment. It takes him off track and he starts mumbling. Which just wasn't like Bilbo at all. The goal of Bilbo's speech wasn't to get applause "yay! good simple speech! No nonsense!"

[FireroseArien]

Congrats on the new one @KingODuckingham !

I think what helps the latter scene immensely here are the acting talents of the Ians, for sure. They bring such depth to the characters that it's almost entirely possible to ignore the dialogue that maybe doesn't sit quite right. The very bit at the end of that scene, though, when Gandalf goes to touch the ring and JUMP SCARE, frightened me when I saw it the theater - even though I totally guessed that it was coming. I thought that moment was a great foreshadowing as to how the Ring can wield different (or greater) power through different peoples. For Bilbo it really isn't much more than a trinket he's oddly attached to - like my dog and her favorite toy. But with Gandalf, we first get the sense that this is a Much Much Bigger Deal.

[KingODuckingham]

Well, now that the forum is mostly a ghost town and near nobody is here to read what I write, why not return to the project? It's only been a casual nine months or so right?

The Plot Picks Up, time stamp 30:00-34:55

After Bilbo departs, Gandalf returns to the house and has a long, moody scene with his pipe. I love how slow and heavy the scene is. The fire burns low as he meditates, and Frodo bursting into the house doesn't cause Gandalf to flinch or even blink. The total time is more than 60 seconds. And when Gandalf does turn around to look at the Ring in Frodo's hands, his disposition has completely changed from the gloom we saw in the previous shot; Frodo sees none of Gandalf's worry or stress, which is appropriate. The music and lighting is reminding us of deeper and darker things, though, and you can almost suspect Frodo feels it. The only thing I did not really appreciate was the jump scare when Gandalf nearly touches the Ring. That moment feels more like Peter Jackson the horror director feeling indulgent rather than anything characteristic of LotR.

That said, this scene, or the tail end of it, introduces an extended portion of compressed timing and horrible pacing, some of the worst in the trilogy outside the march to the Black Gate. It doesn't seem like it will be at first-- I like the transition from slow and moody into Gandalf rushing out despite Frodo's confusion. That sequence accurately captures the feeling of the book and the general character of Gandalf: too busy and mysterious to explain himself in any way to anyone. The only hitch is how bizarre it now is for Frodo to ask no questions about Bilbo, ownership of Bag End, cleaning up the Party, etc. But that is forgivable (I suppose) in the narrative of the movie. Such details can be assumed to have taken care of themselves, except for Frodo and Bilbo's relationship. The thirty minute mark is when the story needs to get a move on, though, and those minutes were nearly all well spent. And besides, we get the great "keep it secret, keep it safe" delivery, one of the most memorable of the whole movie.* Yet the progression of scenes that follows always jars me, no matter how many times I've seen it.

We cut to Barad-dur, which has a funny little misleading introduction: what appears to be the tower itself turns out merely to be some sort of minaret to the complex itself, covered in cute little lights. Truly a busy place!, says the audience. A voice that we are supposed to remember is Gollum yells Shire and Baggins, which we are supposed to remember he knows (and this is assuming we can understand him. Maybe I just have bad ears. I mean I do, but like, really bad.) Mt. Doom erupts, which we are supposed to know means Sauron is communicating with his servants. Without knowing that, I suppose it communicates to us that Sauron is excited and/or angry. We cut to what I would probably have assumed to be Barad-dur again if I did not know better, where the Black Riders are emerging. How long did this take? Is it happening right after Gandalf left? How long will it take them to reach the Shire and Baggins? We have no idea.

We are left to assume all happens in chronological order. Gandalf does see Orodruin spitting fire after all. He goes to somewhere the audience doesn't know that has a library. Sir Ian carries both the reading and his reactions, but then we cut back to the Shire (in a fun Farmer Maggot cameo) where the Black Rider is ALREADY THERE. Farmer Maggot says the Bagginses are up in Hobbiton, only we do not know where Hobbiton is in relation to the location of the scene, except that he points down the road. Perhaps the farmer is not in the Shire at all? The rider did ask for "Shire" after all. It looks like the Shire though, because he has the same Hobbit hole door we have come to expect of that place. And THEN we cut to a scene at an inn that we have to assume is in Hobbiton, but everything is totally fine. Not only does no Black Rider show up, but Gandalf is going to come back before any of them. He must have had a much shorter trip than they did, right? Well, no (we know).

All the locations and times feel disconnected, or perhaps squashed, which is quite frustrating. It reminds me of much worse fantasy movies, where the universe is slapped on and the names don't matter, which is not what I expect from Tolkien. We need more than just the emotions created by the scenes, we need the grounding that the movie has worked so hard to establish with the Shire in the first half hour. I think what we see here is the movie as medium beginning to break trying to bend around the epic nature of the story.

*Let us also note the subtle callback when Gandalf this time dodges the lantern instead of bonking his head, because when the wizard means business he no longer makes clumsy mistakes. Game time!

[Boromir88]

I've recently watched both trilogies and able to return to the Plaza. At the pace of the thread, your review might take several years but after the "Snyder cut" for the avengers the news is there will be a "Jackson cut" of The Fellowship that will be 8.5 days long. Good to keep going with this, after watching all 6 movies again I attempted to begin discussion on An Unexpected Journey. However, the lack of replies probably has nothing to do with my post and everything to do with The Hobbit is just a boring trilogy that doesn't stir up much discussion. At least the LOTR trilogy I expect there will be more disagreements and thus more to talk about.

I see what you mean by the pace of the film changing, because they start compressing the timeline. I do think though the decisions Jackson made for the FOTR ultimately made it his best film (and not just out of the Tolkien films, but his best as a director). I remember in the extended Appendices Jackson talking about the story of FOTR had to be about Frodo and the Ring. Anything that didn't advance Frodo and the Ring had to be cut. So, his crimes for FOTR, in my opinion, seemed to mostly fall into "crimes of abridgment" and not "crimes of ego/embellishment."

We've spent a good chunk of the film in The Shire, learn quite a bit about the main character Gandalf, the comfortable life of hobbits. I think it was also a good decision to introduce the audience to Sam, Merry and Pippin in the party scene. It's much different from the book, but that to me feels like a "crime of abridgment," and just needing to move the story along. I also think Gandalf finding the scroll of Isildur was important to advancing the story about the Ring. Agree it squashes together the timeline, but I think having a scene with Gandalf reading the scroll is important for when Gandalf performs the "last test" throwing it into Frodo's fire.

But I agree about the cut to Barad-dur with Gollum's "Shire! Baggins!" and then showing the Ringwraiths riding out. I think the inclusion of the scenes are important, but where they're placed in the film is what messes it up (which is I think your point). It would have been better to have those scenes sort of like a "flash back" scene, when Gandalf returns to Bag End, performs the "final test." Then he reveals to Frodo that Gollum was captured and spilled the beans...then with a flashback cut to Barad-dur "Shire! Baggins!" and the Ringwraiths riding out. This might have worked better with the movie timeline? Or maybe not even show the Ringwraiths riding out, leave that bit like in the books where the Ringwraith's nature and movements in their "hunt for the Ring" aren't fully known. That's what builds up the suspense for me when reading the book, I don't even think Gandalf warned Frodo about them, and Gildor was like "I don't want to tell you."

[KingODuckingham]

Can I just take a moment to thank past me for timestamping because it saves me quite a bit of time.

LOTR the Horror Movie?, timestamp 34:55 - 41:20

After a brief pub scene (which has a clever little foreshadowing song about wind and rain and many miles to walk) Frodo returns home alone. He has some really terrible one-liner about Rosie knowing an idiot when she sees one. The non-Tolkien dialogue really stands out like a sore thumb, even if in another movie it would have been fine. But anyway!

The camera changes style as Frodo approaches his hobbit hole. The camera purposefully is obstructed to give the illusion that we see through the eyes of someone (we are meant to presume malicious) watching Frodo, perhaps from inside. What is this, a Scream movie? Another classic horror trick or two follow: pretend that movement is happening when really it was only the wind, and as Frodo investigates, have the camera looking at his face so that we cannot see what he sees, but only behind him. This allows for the hand to appear that the audience can see but Frodo cannot. Ahhh! Only we know, because we've read the books, that nothing bad is going to happen, so...there's no tension in the scene. At all. If you had not read the books, due to the confusion earlier in the movie's timeline, tension might be manufactured. But why do it this way, other than that PJ really likes directing horror? I don't know. It's like creating a problem of continuity for the purpose of creating another problem: departure from source material for no reason.

I also don't like Gandalf's fake panic, as if someone were about to burst through the doors, only because he does not keep it up for the rest of the scene. Did he just get distracted? I do like his rollercoaster of emotions as he listens to Frodo tell him about what he can see on the heated-up ring. I also like his exposition in the morning tea scene that follows, and a good thing too because in any other movie hearing about a ring of "power" made by a fake guy in a fake land in a volcano called "Mount Doom" would be utterly laughable. But we take it seriously because Sir Ian said it.

The brief Gollum torture shots are perfectly done, looking horrible but on close inspection leaving almost everything to the imagination. How does Gandalf know what Gollum told the Enemy? Did I miss something? (really)

The cut from Frodo's "But that would lead them here!" to the Ringwraith lopping off a Shirriff's head does not work, I think, because it's laughable when it should be terrifying or suspenseful. A rare miss on the use of the Ringwraiths.

The offering of the ring to Gandalf is unfortunately rushed in pacing, again probably in response to the just-mentioned cut-away. Frodo appears to be panicking (again, for little reason given the apparent circumstances) when they are just standing in his living room. The actors are still doing a good job but it would have been a top moment for Gandalf to suffer temptation the way that we will see with Galadriel later. Oh well, it's still good. It's a very important scene for the real story, which is that it takes the 'weak' and 'foolish' of the world to bring down the strong, because the strong and good are too strong to be good. If you see what I mean.

Frodo's momentary thoughtfulness followed by a firm "What must I do?" is the question we all must ask ourselves when confronted with trouble and evil.