Extended Edition of FotR!!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by olsonm
I wonder if anyone actually worships PJ?

JD: You did say he could come up with no excuse, not no excuse that you would except. I was just pointing out the obvious. The most obvious reason is that he thought; "Gosh, Frodo's moment of solitary defiance at the ford is great. I wish he had a moment like that at the end of the movie instead of in the middle." That's it. No hidden messages, no secret agendas. Just Peter "My movies are slices of cake." Jackson shifting elements of Frodo's character around so the movie would have a more conventional ending.

Well then as I said back when the movie first casme out - he dumbed it down for the masses.

In actuality - in the book Frodo DID NOT have a defining moment at the end. He was taken over by the Ring and was going to claim it for himself. The only reason it got destroyed was because gullum came and attacked him and fell into Mt Doom after he bit off Frodo's finger.

But I suppose Jackson will change that too - so it's "more traditional ending". Must have the hero be the clear cut hero. I can see it - Frodo will have a defiant fit of strength. Gullum will come after him. Frodo takes the ring in his hand and tells Gullum - "you want it - go and get it!" and throws the ring into the fire of Mt Doom. Gullum runs after it and plunges to his death into Mt Doom. The "you want it - go and get it" fits in real nice with the "you want him - come and claim him".

The extended version is good - but it just proves to me that all Jackson did was make a mass marketed dumbed down movie.

[olsonm]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
In actuality - in the book Frodo DID NOT have a defining moment at the end. He was taken over by the Ring and was going to claim it for himself. The only reason it got destroyed was because gullum came and attacked him and fell into Mt Doom after he bit off Frodo's finger.

But I suppose Jackson will change that too - so it's "more traditional ending". Must have the hero be the clear cut hero. I can see it - Frodo will have a defiant fit of strength. Gullum will come after him. Frodo takes the ring in his hand and tells Gullum - "you want it - go and get it!" and throws the ring into the fire of Mt Doom. Gullum runs after it and plunges to his death into Mt Doom. The "you want it - go and get it" fits in real nice with the "you want him - come and claim him".

JD, what are you talking about? I meant at the end of the Fellowship movie, not the whole thing.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by olsonm
JD, what are you talking about? I meant at the end of the Fellowship movie, not the whole thing.

What defining moment did he have at the end of Fellowship? He was romantically looking out over Mordor with Sam.

Frodo, in my opinion, needed the defiant moment in the Flight to the Ford scene to show why Gandalf felt he could handle the quest. Although it's not in the movie (no surprise there), Gandalf does tell him that "I have known strong warriors of the Big People who would quickly have been overcome by that splinter, which you bore for seventeen days."

Gandalf was the only one who had dealings with hobbits. Elrond didn't really understand them. It showed that hobbits were stronger than everyone thought.

[olsonm]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
What defining moment did he have at the end of Fellowship? He was romantically looking out over Mordor with Sam.

The long moment of Frodo standing on the shores of the Nen Hithoel and then finally doing something on his own. The moment when he closes his hand on the Ring and refuses Sam's pleas. The moment at the Ford proved no such thing. Frodo proved that in the Barrow and at Weathertop. He proved it simply by carrying the splinter for seventeen days.

The movie didn't need this because it was different. PJ definately made the movie more conventional than the book. In my opinion the book is radical and revolutionary. That's why, no matter how much I like the movie, it can never compare to the book or even be compared to the book.

On the other hand I don't blame PJ for playing it safe. The movie was risky enough (with it's budget) based solely on it's length and number of characters. It doesn't surprise me that PJ didn't worry about it being as innovative as the book.

[IronParrot]

What olsonm said - that was the defining Frodo moment of the film, when he finally manages to confront the responsibility laid before him.

(I would say that there is a similar moment earlier on, when at the Council of Elrond, he declares that he will bear the Ring further.)

As for the Ford, I think that visually speaking, it would be hard to balance the extreme nature of the wound with Frodo's ability to flee and defy the Riders, because he was indeed on the verge of blacking out at that point. I think Jackson decided that instead of having mediocrity in both, he would shift the strength towards one of those instead, being the former - emphasizing the effect of the wound on Frodo.

Also note that with no earlier exposition of the Lay of Elbereth, or Frodo's learning in lore, it would seem distinctly out of place for him to do it at that point, no?

[Dunadan]

Yes - and it leaves us with a nice character development theme for later films. Much as Aragorn seems set to do in TTT.

[Lief Erikson]

The only reason it got destroyed was because gullum came and attacked him and fell into Mt Doom after he bit off Frodo's finger.

But I suppose Jackson will change that too - so it's "more traditional ending". Must have the hero be the clear cut hero.

Actually, I don't know if you were serious in saying Peter Jackson will do this or not, but if you are, there's utterly no chance of the ending being changed in such a way. The reason that that moment is so dramatic is because of his succumbing to the power of the Ring. And at the same time, the Ringwraiths are charging in, and everything is looking bad. Too dramatic to simply let him drop it the way Bilbo does. Although it might make him try to do it that way and fail.

[Rían]

OH NO - I can't help it - ANOTHER QUOTE from LETTERS!! ( I hope you guys aren't sick of me doing this!)

from JRRT's letter #181
Frodo was in such a position: an apparently complete trap: a person of greater native power could probably never have resisted the Ring's lure to power so long; a person of less power could not hope to resist it in the final decision. (Already Frodo had been unwilling to harm the Ring before he set out, and was incapable of surrendering it to Sam.) The Quest therefore was bound to fail as a piece of world-plan, and also was bound to end in disaster as the story of humble Frodo's development to the 'noble', his sanctification. Fail it would and did as far as Frodo considered alone was concerned...But at this point the 'salvation' of the world and Frodo's own 'salvation' is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of injury. At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would certainly betray him, and could rob him in the end. To 'pity' him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical belief in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time. He did rob him and injure him in the end - but by a 'grace', that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil deed was the most beneficial thing any one cd. have done for Frodo! By a situation created by his 'forgiveness', he was saved himself, and relieved of his burden. He was very justly accorded the highest honors..."

A bit long, but really important, IMHO (and apparently JRRT's, too! )

[Cirdan]

That was a good quote, Rian. I think it could be expanded to the knids of relationships Frodo had with the other characters as well. Would Sam have been as faithful, and able to bear the ring and then give it up had Frodo not possessed the kind of grace we see in the example cited in that quote? It is easier for the other members of the fellowship to make sacrifices themselves because of Frodo's nature.

Regarding the changes in Frodo's character I do think that the scenes at the barrow, Weathertop, and the Ford are more important in expanding his role into the realm of courage which is different than his willingness to sacrifice and risk the worst possible circumstance at the hands of Sauron. While he is sympathetic and incites "the better angels" of his companions, the lack of courage in battle weakens the Fellowship by inspiring doubt as to his ability to withstand adversity and fear. His greatest quality is his adaptability to the worst situations. His ability to act in spite of fear (courage) is something that should be displayed along the way so that the viewer is not incredulous when he walks into Mordor. There are some opportunities in TTT but it will have to ramp up too fast.

[Rían]

Thanks, Cirdan - do you have "Letters"? It's a great book w/ lots of good insights.

I like your thoughts on how Frodo's example helped the others to do things that they might not have been able to do otherwise.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Thanks, Cirdan - do you have "Letters"? It's a great book w/ lots of good insights.

I like your thoughts on how Frodo's example helped the others to do things that they might not have been able to do otherwise.

Santa will probably bring it. I was trying to reading HoME in order, but Letters and PoME will be my next Tolkien reads other than the read of LoTR (yet again). Morgoth's Ring is in there too.

[Lollypopgurl]

THE EXTENDED VERSION ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!

That's all I have to say, that's all I need to say.

[Blackboar]

I think its great
I love the bit at the begining and
the sceane with Pippin and the lemba's.

[azalea]

I watched the cast's commentary last night, and it was really enjoyable. My favorite parts: Orli talking about his "lembas commercial" (that was so funny), and Pip...er, Billy Boyd's comment at the very very end of the commentary . It was also funny hearing about the other hobbit actors playing a joke on Elijah, playing a game that didn't exist, and then a year later he asked why they never played it anymore! For a whole year he thought it was a real game! That would be like something I'd do .

Oh, and I wanted to mention that something PJ said in his commentary summed up a bit of what I felt about the movie. I really liked the movie despite the changes made to the story. PJ said that he really tried to create scenery exactly how it was in the book, and he hoped that fans of the book would at least enjoy seeing ME come to life, even if there were changes made to the story line. That is true for me, although I liked the movie for more reasons than just that.

[olsonm]

I thought it was funny when PJ would confuse the movie with the book (or just get everything wrong), like when he thought Frodo met Aragorn at Amon Hen in the book (as in the movie); and when he thought they changed something by making Frodo decide to take the Ring all the way to Mordor only at the Council of Elrond, even though that's how it is in the book. Silly absent-minded Kiwi.

[Rían]

azalea - I'm so glad you mentioned that! I had no idea there was a running commentary on the extended version dvd! I thought you meant the "fellowship of the cast" segment, but the lembas commercial wasn't there, so I searched around and found the "commentary" option - what fun! And it sure seems like they were watching the extended version for the first time - they were saying things like "oh, look - that scene got put in !" I fast-forwarded to the lembas part, and that was funny! (the lembas commerical ) Now I just need to get some time to watch the whole thing...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Actually, I don't know if you were serious in saying Peter Jackson will do this or not, but if you are, there's utterly no chance of the ending being changed in such a way. The reason that that moment is so dramatic is because of his succumbing to the power of the Ring. And at the same time, the Ringwraiths are charging in, and everything is looking bad. Too dramatic to simply let him drop it the way Bilbo does. Although it might make him try to do it that way and fail.

I was being facetious. I still think the jackson's version has a lot ot be desired - so I don't think he made a great movie of LotR. I do think that the extended version was much much better than what was shown in the movie theater though.

I also disagree that there had to be a choice between emphasing the wound and it's affect or Frodo's strength at the end. There is a lot in the movie that isn't well explained - so I don't think that him crying out Elbereth would have mattered to non-tokien fans. Jackson needed to stress the hobbit's, and in particular Frodo's strength, but instead during most of the movie (especially the theatrical version) Frodo is weak.

[BeardofPants]

I hope you don't think ALL kiwi's are absent m----... er, what was I saying again?

[Lief Erikson]

That depends what you call weak, I think. In terms of moral strength, I think you're definitely wrong. He made the decision to go to Mordor alone, didn't he? That decision wasn't made in arrogance, it was made in self sacrifice and pure hobbit pluck and determination.

Physical strength you might have a point on, although that, to me, doesn't make any difference. He wasn't that physically strong in the books either.

I don't think too many things went unexplained, either. My Dad hadn't read the books before seeing the movie, and he didn't come away any questions as to what had been going on. I doubt that anyone could do a better movie of FoTR than Peter Jackson did.

[Ms. Undomial]

is there a two towers preview on the ex DVD? if so I can't find it. can someone please help me?