LotR1-FotR-Seq02

[alatar]

B-A-G E-N-D...that spells comfort.

The sequence starts with the use (again) of the Middle Earth map that allows us to see where we are. You also get a preview of where we know that we're all going, such as Bree. We're going to spend a little time in the Shire, but just look at what's over those mountains.

But first we get to see Bag End. The amount of detail is just incredible! - especially if you consider that much of the detail is superfluous to the story. Who really cares if there are five books or six piled around Bilbo's desk? The answer is that these details add to the feeling of the scene subconsciously. Your brain starts saying, "this is a real place, a real room and the real desk of a real person who likes to write." And it reminds me of many professors' offices...

Peter Jackson stated that he liked the Bag End set so much that he paid to have it stored away, and one day hopes to live in it (though the cynic in me realizes what a pretty penny it would bring at auction...). Hope that PJ realizes that Ian McKellan and Elijah Wood walked off with a few things on their last day of shooting on that set. Obviously nothing too important, or I think that they may not have told me of their crime in one of the DVD appendices.

So, like in the Books, we learn about hobbits. The Shire is a beautiful place, to me more so than what we will see later in Lothlorien. Is that because this place looks more real, or is it personal bias? It's an Edenic home where I could live, assuming that I was half my current height and my desire to wear boots 24/7/365 was purged from my being.

Note that I hate the 'hobbit cleaning his ear' scene. Sure, they're an earthy and simple people, but this is something I don't want to see. Next thing that you know, we'll be experiencing other bodily functions from members of other short races...but I do like Bilbo's laughing at the thought. Ian Holm plays the character well like an eccentric old uncle that you love to have visit - though he annoys the prim and proper half of the family.

And another gripe. Does my first viewing of Sam, the sidekick hero, have to be of him staring amazed at a potted flower? Sure, they're trying to establish him as a gardener, man of the soil, but wasn't there a better way to do it? Could we have seen him planting a sapling? I can just hear the scene director saying, "Okay, now, look lovingly at the flower." Yuck. Sam, you just planted a flower, which, as a gardener, I would have hoped that you've done more than once. You didn't place a garland of flowers on Rosie Cotton's head or a kiss on her lips for gosh sakes!

And still on the same wagon, though I like the clumsiness of the hobbits who are raising the pavilion, as this shows again that they're my kin, but what's with the hobbit who cannot hit the peg? Is he drunk, clumsy, poor-sighted or other? Please, these are hobbits, not stupid silly short people. Having watched the rest of the trilogy, one starts to wonder if PJ equates small with slapstick.

Gandalf in the cart is Gandalf, not an actor. I was immediately sold on the movie after seeing Gandalf here (though the grumbling would still continue, as you all know quite well ).

Now the line about 'there's always been a Baggins living in Bag End/under the hill, and there always will' is a bit confusing. Exactly who takes over after Frodo leaves? We know it's not Sam (though it should have been) and Frodo has no other heirs, so why add the line, especially when delivered with such melancholy by Bilbo? Does he think that he will leave Bag End and the Ring behind, as it is he that is the problem? Doesn’t he consider that by leaving the Ring to Frodo, that Frodo will be taking up the problem where Bilbo leaves it? And that Frodo, too, will find no peace in this paradise?

Bilbo's mania over misplacing the Ring demonstrates that such a prize has its costs. And we get to hear about the "incident with the dragon" and even get to see the map of Erebor. More great details for us fans.

The children, cheering on Gandalf, show us indirectly the character of the wizard. Some older hobbits don't like this disturber of their peace, but what can you say about someone adored by children? And you can see that that fondness is reciprocated. Though how these young children know who this Big Person is is a bit of a mystery, seeing that Bilbo is surprised to see him, as if they’d hadn’t seen each other in a good while.

And Gandalf remarks about Bilbo’s agelessness.

And now for an aside: Having recently attended my 20th (yes, 2-0) high school reunion, I was struck not by how some had changed but more so by one of my friends who hadn’t. We speak routinely electronically yet rarely have the time to meet, with families and all. Anyway, theories abound, and I’ve considered that she’s either been frozen in ice, has discovered either the elixir vitae or time travel, bears one of the Rings of Power or is a doppleganger. I was able to scratch her skin, and so we’ll see what the DNA tests show. Anyway, my point is that one does not consider that someone hasn’t aged a bit after not having seen them for a week or two - especially amongst men, as these two, though Hobbit and Maia, appear to be. Gandalf’s observation of Bilbo to me indicates that they haven’t seen each other for 5 -10 years at the very least, yet we have the children’s recognition of the Grey One. Munching on minutia? You betcha. But just something that I’ve noted.

And note about notes: I bought the FotR soundtrack, and just love the melody (not a musician, and so insert correct term here) that occurs right when Frodo leaves Gandalf's cart. This mini theme reoccurs - obviously to remind one of the Shire - and it really brings a peace with it each time it’s heard. Kudos to Howard Shore.

The pan of the Shire, leading up to Gandalf's arrival at Bag End, is what is missing in other big films. Though I'm not exactly sure what is real in the pan, I think that that's the point. You get the feeling that the Shire is a place in which you could go now and visit - it's not CG. What PJ really gets right is the scenery. New Zealand is Middle Earth.

The shot of Gandalf's back as Bilbo opens the door is NOT Gandalf. Not sure if it's a sequencing thing, but this Gandalf doesn't look the like one that was riding in the cart. It may be his hair, his cloak, the color of his hair, cloak, hat etc. Or maybe it's just me.

The sizing effects, special or otherwise, of Gandalf and Bilbo work really well. You never get the feeling that these two human actors are never in the same scene/shot/reality together. You just see two old friends getting reacquainted. Even watching at slo-mo it’s hard to see the trickery. As PJ states somewhere in the commentary, once he established that hobbits were small but real, the rest would be easy.

And don’t you just love the shot where Ian McKellen bangs his head against the doorway? Ouch! An accident, but played off well by a great actor. And its inclusion into the film was also a good idea. We learn visually that Gandalf is tall, Bag End is small and Gandalf is not a perfect angelic being.

Glad to hear the 'butter scraped over too much bread' quote where Bilbo becomes more serious; this movie is about more than just overly attached ear wax. The smoking-bonding of these two old friends not only adds more from the books, but is a great pause before the chaos of the party. Somewhere it was noted that party scenes are notoriously hard to film, but it seemed that these extras (some family members) and actors were really enjoying themselves. The dancing, fireworks, tales to small hobbits all add to the festive atmosphere. The wigs that all but one hobbit extra wears weren’t the best props though.

I could do without the introduction of Merry and Pippin; understanding that we need to see that they are fools at the beginning doesn't make me like them any more. The touching moment between Bilbo and Frodo, lightened by the "gaffer's own brew' was a way to soften a touching moment - or was it a "dumbing down" where we wouldn't want to go too long without some fluff? Peter Jackson seemingly oscillates between the serious and the not so serious. The tension increases, yet we get a moment now and then to catch our breath (and, I think, to make sure that no viewer is lost along the way).

And the Dragon! Clever way to show that Bilbo (and Frodo) are the odd Hobbits. Bilbo is the least concerned, as he should be, having faced the real deal those many years back. It's hints like these, along with the Lonely Mountain map and the reference by Gandalf that make me love this sequence - details that are placed in the story, seemingly, just for us. Bilbo looks a bit too manic/psycho/desperate/unsure when he finally decided to disappear, as he's just too happy about it when arriving back at Bag End. Paranoia is one thing, but schizophrenia too? I like it that Gandalf beats him there - it makes Gandalf appear a bit more mysterious, and not just some conjurer of cheap tricks.

Then we finally come to it. Bilbo becomes the addict that he fears himself being stretched into. Luckily Gandalf is there to talk him down. And when Gandalf asserts himself, seemingly done with only a change of lighting, it’s just right out of the book. You get the sense that Gandalf has a dangerous side, yet isn’t going to pull out a mace and start thwopping Bilbo on the head. We see the kindness in his eyes, his love for Bilbo and this helps Bilbo finally let go. Bilbo is back to his jolly self, marching and singing down the lane. Gandalf knows that they will meet again, adding to the puzzle.

The drop of the Ring, magnet and microphone enhanced, is ominous. It’s as if the Ring is staying put, waiting for someone to enter the door. But who will its next bearer be? That would be next week’s sequence.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

"And now for an aside: Having recently attended my 20th (yes, 2-0) high school reunion, I was struck not by how some had changed but more so by one of my friends who hadn’t. We speak routinely electronically yet rarely have the time to meet, with families and all. Anyway, theories abound, and I’ve considered that she’s either been frozen in ice, has discovered either the elixir vitae or time travel, bears one of the Rings of Power or is a doppleganger."
==============
Or perhaps she's got a picture of herself in her bedroom that ages.

As for the topic: I find quite interesting the difference in speaker, and context,
of (in the movie) Frodo/Gandalf, and (in the extended dvd) Bilbo, discussing
events in the outside world. In the movie, Gandalf effectively brushes off
Frod's queries while basically the same observation in the dvd makes more
sense.

I also puzzled over the (nonbook) Bilbo comment about a Baggins at Bagend.
You could argue that Sam and Rosie were effectively "adopted", and
in the book lived with Frodo there, but in the movie they seem to have their
own cottage.

The children asking for fireworks (a great bit) could be explained as them hearing tales of Gandalf (perhaps by Bilbo). And I thought that the approving hobbit and his disapproving wife might be (and I think should have been) Lobelia and her
rather hen-picked husband- the actual dvd ones seemed too much a
characature.

And it's amazing the cake scene worked so well when it actually caught on
fire during the filming.

[Essex]

I also puzzled over the (nonbook) Bilbo comment about a Baggins at Bagend.

I think it's there to add to the melancholy at the End. There IS no Baggins to take it over, Frodo did not have an Heir (as Bilbo no doubt thought he would......)

PS Gandalf DID NOT let off fireworks before the Party. BLASPHEMY!!!!

[Boromir88]

I'd like to make some comments on Ian Holm who I think plays the part of Bilbo perfectly. I didn't like Ian too much in the '91 Hamlet (with Mel Gibson), I don't think he makes a very good Shakespearan actor...rushes through the lines. But, I loved him as Bilbo.

The part that sticks out the most is when he says "It's mine, I found it! It came to me! It's mine, my own, my PRECIOUS!" He sounds exactly like Gollum and I love this part, I think Ian nails it down.

What I like is we see that something is troubling Bilbo (certainly it's the Ring). He wants to get out of the Shire, and comments like he needs a long holiday, and he feels stretched like butter scraped over too much bread, are powerful lines and we see that something's just not right with Bilbo. The Extended Edition gives us even more clues with Frodo's comments like "He stays locked up all day," or their exchange at the party when Bilbo avoids the Sackville-Bagginses.

Then another quick thing is when Bilbo gives up the Ring. I think Jackson does this quite well. Isn't there something in the book where Gandalf explains that he had to use a lot of his strength to get Bilbo to give up the Ring? I know he does when Frodo puts the Ring on at Amon Hen, but I think there's also mention of him "intervening" when Bilbo gives up the Ring. Anyway, I think Jackson shows this well.

Bilbo sits there staring at the Ring, Gandalf kind of comes from the corner. Then Bilbo lets it go, and there's a loud thud on the floor. It makes it seem as if Gandalf is intervening and telepathically telling Bilbo to give up the Ring. Then once Bilbo leaves we get a sigh of relief from him, and he seems a lot more "light-hearted..." "I thought up of an ending for my book..."

Another small think I'd like to point out, several times Jackson uses Chapters from the book as lines in the movie. We hear one basically right off the bat when Gandalf arrives "A long expected Party." And shortly after Bilbo leaves there's "Riddles in the Dark" which I think is a chapter in The Hobbit...right? Anyway, I just thought that was neat.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Tuor of Gondolin

And I thought that the approving hobbit and his disapproving wife might be (and I think should have been) Lobelia and her rather hen-picked husband.

I believe that they credited as Everard and Mrs Proudfoot, both of whom are named in the cast list (see IMDb). As I recall, the husband is the same Hobbit who proudly declares "Proudfeet!" at Bilbo's party and who appears again in RotK, grimacing at the returning Hobbits.

[radagastly]

One of the first things I noticed is that, whereas, most scenes in most movies start with an establishing shot, usually exterior, this scene moves directly from the map (used to establish the location) to the interior of Bag End, directly into the cluttered Study of Bilbo as he begins writing his book. It's the words of that book that take us out into the Shire and the world of the Hobbits. And what a world it is. Green, green and more green. I believe I read or heard somewhere (possibly the director's comments, I'm not sure) that the set pieces for Hobbiton were constructed a year early so the flowers and crops coud be planted and have time to grow. I could be mistaken, but it certainly looks like it's been there a long time, an established community, not just a movie set.

One brief scene, added from the theatrical version, is of Bilbo fumbling around his study to find the ring. I believe it was Ian Holm, or possibly Peter Jackson, who was concerned that showing this scene so early on would establish Bilbo as a bit of a psycho, and show him in a negative light. I'm glad it was added for the extended edition, though. It carries over the obsessive words of Gollum, "My own, my love, my precious!" from the earlier scene in his cave, showing the ring as more than an ordinary band of gold. I wonder if it's clear to people who haven't read the book first that it's the ring that Bilbo is looking for? Probably, but I'd like to hear from those who saw the movie first, or rather the extended edition.

Another important addition from the theatrical version is the scene at the party when Bilbo and Frodo hide from the Sackville-Bagginses. It should have been in the theatrical version as it's the only scene one-on-one between Bilbo and Frodo before Rivendell. The only other scene with both of them is Bilbo's speech at the Birthday Party. This is a rather significant relationship to slight in such a way. I understand why it was done (that old mathom, pacing) but I would think P. J. could have fit in something between just the two of them, somewhere, before Bilbo left.

I'll add more later, as there's more I want to talk about, but time is currently an issue.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Another small think I'd like to point out, several times Jackson uses Chapters from the book as lines in the movie. We hear one basically right off the bat when Gandalf arrives "A long expected Party." And shortly after Bilbo leaves there's "Riddles in the Dark" which I think is a chapter in The Hobbit...right? Anyway, I just thought that was neat.

And "A Shortcut To Mushrooms"

[AbercrombieOfRohan]

PS Gandalf DID NOT let off fireworks before the Party. BLASPHEMY!!!!

That never seemed to really bother me, though I've heard numerous times from other fans that it destroyed their viewing of the Shire and blah blah. I thought it was quite cute, plus the face that Gandalf makes after setting of the fireworks is priceless. The kids in this scene are adorable too; it was very much the Shire for me.

Alright so going down the list of shots:

The bits with the map and Bilbo narrarating over them were good. I know it was a point of discussion amongst the crew of the movie who they should have narrarate the prologue and Bilbo's name came up. I'm glad they found a use for his narraration in the end.

During his whole monologue, various scenes of hobbits being hobbity are shown, on the whole I think these were ok, though there is a shot where two hobbits are about to kiss and one takes a cupcake from a passer-by. The girl hobbit seems extremely tall and it's always bugged me. Do you think that she's as tall as the rest of the hobbits and the male hobbit is just particularly short or that she's a giant among hobbits and is taller than all of them? I can't figure it out.

PJ discussed how important it was to him that they get the digital grading right in the Shire, so that it didn't look too sci-fi and fake or that it looked to brown and dead. I'm certainly glad that they didn't mess this up either, because I would have been disappointed. There is only one shot where it looks too bright, and that's the one where Gandalf's cart passes in front of a field of yellow flowers and there is rolling green hills in the background. The greens and the yellows in this shot were overly done I think, but perhaps this just stems from having watched the movies too many times.

The whole "You're late!" scene was superb and generally I dislike Elijah Woods performance of Frodo, but I find this scene tolerable, if only for Mckellen's amazing job as Gandalf in this scene. Also, Mckellen humming "The Road Goes Ever On and On" in the background, while Frodo reads a book in a field, sold me on the fact that PJ and crew were trying to make the movie closely resemble Tolkien's original work. I was hesitant, to say the least, to see these movies when they first came out, because I simply wasn't sure if they could match up to Tolkien, but this scene clinched it (at least if "it" stands for exceeded my expectations, but never quite got so far as to be JRRT).

Mckellen's interaction with Frodo in the cart when they talk about Bilbo and such, was very well done.

The shot of Gandalf's back as Bilbo opens the door is NOT Gandalf. Not sure if it's a sequencing thing, but this Gandalf doesn't look the like one that was riding in the cart. It may be his hair, his cloak, the color of his hair, cloak, hat etc. Or maybe it's just me.

Perhaps it's that Bilbo's hair in this scene looks exactly like my Memére's.

The party, with the music and the dancing was good. But, I have this to ask you, what is up with Frodo's dancing? It's certainly...unique and quite humourous. One can only hope that that is not how Tolkien envisioned Frodo's dancing. I really liked Merry, Pippin and the firework and I agree with Alatar about the portrayal of these scenes.

Has anyone else noticed that Thomas Robins, who plays Deagol in RotK makes a cameo as one of the hobbits watching Bilbo make his speech? Perhaps they are two people that look ridiculously similar and it's not him.

Upon re-watching this/these scene(s), my love of Ian Holm and Ian Mckellen is heightened. They are just terrific actors and absolutely perfect for the roles in which they were cast.

All in all, I love these scenes. These are the ones I watch when I have a limited amount of time and would like nothing better than sit there and drink tea, hence the lack of criticisms.

[Mister Underhill]

I just don't think there's only one way to "mass marketability". Adaptation is an art, not a mathematical proof.

And you're right that there are obviously future implications to be thought through for any particular approach. Maybe by going down some roads, we will see why the filmmakers ultimately didn't take them. In the case of my hypothetical, you trade the exposition up front for a more mysterious build-up of the Ring. Why does Gandalf seem so unnerved by it? Why does Bilbo have such a hard time giving it up? And who are these dudes in the black cloaks who are sniffing around? Eventually you get the whole story. This is how it works in the book, and it doesn't seem to have hurt Tolkien's mass-appeal.

I think we can stipulate that Jackson's adaptation demonstrably has mass-appeal because his movies made a boatload of money. And naturally there were constraints governing some of the choices he made, and these are worth discussing. But just remember that every time you defend one of Jackson's choices based solely on mass-appeal or cite his box office returns as argument-ending proof of his genius, a skwerl dies. Don't be a skwerl-killer.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

But just remember that every time you defend one of Jackson's choices based solely on mass-appeal or cite his box office returns as argument-ending proof of his genius, a skwerl dies. Don't be a skwerl-killer.

Aw! Whyd'ya have to go and take away all my arguments so early on ...

Seriously, I'm not planning on defending any of Jackson's decisions based solely on mass-appeal. I'm just saying that it's a factor in his decision-making. And I am keen to make sure that we keep in mind that these films were made for a wider audience than solely pre-existing fans of the books.

Nor am I suggesting that a delayed exposition wouldn't necessarily work. My inclination is that film audiences, particularly today, have less patience than book readers, at least when it comes to setting up the basis for the story. Or, to put it another way, film-makers have less leeway, in terms of timing and audience expectation, than authors. But I'm willing to suspend judgement and see how it works out (if you're willing to follow it through ).

Of course, any suggested alternative structures are unproven, whereas Jackson's decisions are proven at the box-office ...

*Hark, is that a skwerl I hear thudding to the ground?*

[Boromir88]

As I'm sure you all know that I'm maybe one of the most critical people when it comes to the films. I will say that even as a book fan, I happened to like the Prologue. And do not think it would work well later on in the movies, or cut out and replaced with some more indepth information.

The Prologue gets you introduced to the story of the Ring and the set up. I think if you keep it as a narrative (atleast for me) it wouldn't be as interesting. I mean having Gandalf and Frodo (or even Bilbo if they wanted to) sit in Bag End and talk replay history through dialogue wouldn't be as eye-catching. Unless they wanted to use flashbacks sort of interspliced with the dialogue?

Why does Gandalf seem so unnerved by it? Why does Bilbo have such a hard time giving it up? And who are these dudes in the black cloaks who are sniffing around?

I actually think most of these are pretty well answered early on. Maybe because I've read the book prior to the movies, but I thought the movies answered these pretty well. Atleast the first two questions, maybe not the Nazgul.

We see (through the prologue actually) the corruption the Ring has. We see it wiht Isildur, and Gollum (There it consumed him) right off the bat. Then Bilbo has trouble giving it up. I do wish that they would have had some mention of Bilbo saying the Ring kept slipping off his finger. Because, I think this is rather an important aspect of the ring. It can change sizes (a question I've heard alot...does the Ring change sizes? Why?)

And as to Gandalf being unnerved by it is pretty well shown with his reaction to Bilbo "disappearing" at the party. He knows something's up with that Ring, then we delve further into when he says "It's been called that before, but not by you." So, he obviously feels this is the One Ring and he goes to read Isildur's scroll to get a confirmation. (Though that's not til the next scene I think).

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by Boro

I actually think most of these are pretty well answered early on. Maybe because I've read the book prior to the movies, but I thought the movies answered these pretty well. Atleast the first two questions, maybe not the Nazgul.

Quite right, Boro -- and you've done a proper job of explaining how the film answers these things. I was just wondering how it might work in a scenario where the audience wasn't given the answers to these questions right off the bat. Because as it stands now, we already know the Ring is the Ring, we know it's bad news, we've learned that it's the creation of the Big Bad Dude in Black Armor -- we spend the good part of this sequence waiting for Gandalf to start to catch up to what we already know.

On the other hand, the prologue arguably works in the sense that we know that this evil thing is in the Shire and are anticipating, "What is going to happen in this idyllic, peaceful place because the Ring is there?" It's hard for me to judge one solution against the other objectively because I can't recreate being a movie-goer seeing the story unfold for the first time Jackson-style.

Whether you keep the prologue or not, though, I was simply noting ways in which the sequence might have been presented more from Frodo's point-of-view rather than Gandalf's. Just sort of wondering what motivated that choice, and how it impacts the story as a whole, and what effect a different approach might have had.

And any way you slice it, you're absolutely right that you don't give the Ring's history by having two characters sitting and chatting about it. But flashbacks with Gandalf (and maybe Elrond too) as narrator are interesting to think about.

Originally Posted by SPM

Or, to put it another way, film-makers have less leeway, in terms of timing and audience expectation, than authors.

I tend to agree with this, but I still don't see how it necessarily militates for Jackson's solution. In fact, conventional moviemaking wisdom dictates that you don't start a movie with ten minutes of solid exposition, so in a way I see Jackson actually bucking a traditional "mass-appeal" dictum with his approach.

Interesting side note: in ancient Greece, a character named Prologue would come onstage and simply tell the audience the information they needed to know in order to understand and become emotionally involved in the play.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Aw! Whyd'ya have to go and take away all my arguments so early on ...

Seriously, I'm not planning on defending any of Jackson's decisions based solely on mass-appeal. I'm just saying that it's a factor in his decision-making. And I am keen to make sure that we keep in mind that these films were made for a wider audience than solely pre-existing fans of the books. [/I]*

Quite right, I had not read the books before I saw the movies, but after.
And it's not fair that pre movie Tolkien fanatics get to nag on ones (like me) who didn't know how wonderful LOTR was until Peter Jackson came out with the films.