Jackson's "The Fellowship of the Ring" - Eric's Thoughts

So here I am again! Surprise!

Now, I didn't actually watch the Fellowship of the Ring again, because I've seen the movie quite a few times, and to be frank, I'm sick of it. I have seen the extended special edition, as well as the regular edition.**

**When I was younger, I thought special extended versions were cool because it meant more movie. Now I know special extended versions are a bad idea. Let's take George Lucas's edits, for example, to his classic trilogy.  A really bad idea.

Anyway. Let's talk about the Fellowship. The movie stays pretty true to the books except for a few parts.

• Namely, the Hobbits trek through the old forest is cut, Tom Bombadil is cut, and the Wights are cut. The Hobbits go straight to Bree. Much better.
• Frodo waiting around in the Shire for awhile after Gandalf's warning is cut in the movie.
• Aragon's love interest in Steven Tyler's daughter is intensified in the movie. While the scenes are cheesy and melodramatic, what do you expect. It's a Hollywood movie, and Jackson has producers to please.
• The Fellowship waiting around in Rivendell is cut, as are the smoking scenes.
• The final change is the ending, where the Hobbits get captured and Boromir dies to the orcs, which in the books doesn't happen until Two Towers. I think this was a good decision, because it completes the arc of Boromir, and shows that he really isn't all that bad. Just the ring is.
• Minor changes like where the Watcher in the Water comes from, etc.

Those are the major changes. So the movie stays pretty true.

The Fellowship is by far the best movie. I jumped the first time I saw Bilbo reach for the Ring, and his face becomes distorted. In the book, it's more of a shadow, but the movie version of an evil face works too.

I had a weird-ed out / embarrassed to be in the theater moment when Galadriel shows Frodo the mirror, and then when Frodo offers her the ring, she turns gray and speaks in that weird voice. Rather than scare me, it just made me feel riiiighhhhtttt, this is really weird. I think it was the weird voice that should have been changed.

Of course, to someone who hasn't read the books, the movie is incredibly confusing. There's a huge cast of characters, and the movie without explanation jumps to Mordor where you hear a voice screaming Shire, Baggins, and then these Riders come out. People were scratching their heads. Why was that necessary? Wouldn't it have been better for Gandalf to warn Frodo, and then these creepy Riders show up? The way they look tells you immediately that they are not friends.

Ok. So that's the bad stuff. There's some very good stuff too. Moria of course is excellent, and the high point of the movie. The opening scenes in the Shire are great too, because Jackson takes his time. And, the movie opens with an epic battle scene so you know that stuff will be happening. The party allows you to identify and care about Frodo. The movie is in no rush to begin action, and when it does begin, you hope Frodo doesn't die.

My biggest gripe about those movies is how much CGI there is. People in Hollywood are learning that CGI just doesn't look real, and it takes the viewer out of a movie. Some directors are moving back towards stunts. In the Fellowship, the CGI really looks dated.

But, of course, it's never as bad as this --

No surprise that Pierce Brosnan's contract wasn't renewed.

Bakshi's "The Lord of the Rings" - Ben's Thoughts

The Ralph Bakshi animated "Lord of the Rings" movie has a special place in my heart. I discovered it a few years after reading LOTR, lurking among the mountains of old VHS tapes at my grandparents' cluttered home in Bronte, Texas (a tiny west Texas town). It was like finding buried treasure. I watched it over and over again, drinking up Middle-earth as much as I believed possible, sometimes rewinding it and watching it again from the very beginning as soon as it was over, all while sitting in one of the two comfy recliners in the cozy, dimly lit back room of the old house.

So part of why I wanted to rewatch the film for this re-read is to recapture some of that wonder that a young boy felt all those years ago. Alas, it was probably better left as a beautiful memory of my childhood than as something to be appraised and picked apart as both a film of its own merits and an adaptation of "Fellowship" and most of "Two Towers." Because, boy, is this movie bad.

Well, it's not all bad. There's some good to be had, primarily in the Black Riders in the first third of the movie and, somewhat surprisingly, in Frodo and Sam's meeting with Galadriel at her Mirror in Lórien. I'll discuss both of these segments in greater detail, but we just have to get the bad out of the way right off the bat and get it out of our systems. Taken as a whole, this film has few redeeming qualities, either as an adaptation of Tolkien and as a stand-alone film.

First, the pacing. I understand there was something of a studio battle surrounding the production of this film, and they never signed up for a second one, leaving it with a somewhat stilted feeling (after all, it ends most of the way through "Two Towers," but, awkwardly, not all the way through it), but c'mon. The first half of the movie, from the Shire to Rivendell, feels like there is an arc and a plot progression, but the second half, from Rivendell to Helm's Deep, simply feels like scenes cobbled together. There's no arc to speak of -- the climactic decision for Frodo to take the Ring to Mordor, alone if need be, which is the pinnacle of the plot of "Fellowship," is completely muted and flashes by in an instant. The other possible arc, that of Boromir, never takes off the ground, because this Boromir has no redeeming qualities whatsoever, unlike Jackon's and Tolkien's Boromir, and is basically a huge dick to the whole Company and Frodo in particular, and then he dies.

These structural problems basically doom the movie as a film on its own merits. Especially the last fourth of the film just drags on and on, with orc chase and battle scenes lasting for 5 minutes at a time or more. I understand that rotoscoping was an interesting new technology, and it certainly saved the film a lot of money, from what I understand, but there is simply no need for rotoscoped orc scenes to last as long as they did. Watching orcs move past the camera with no variation or purpose is just wasted space. The merits of the early parts of the film are completely subsumed by the time that the viewer slogs through that final fourth -- it's little wonder that I watched the first two-thirds of the film in two sittings, but it took me four or five sittings to get through that last little bit. It was that painful. Even otherwise successful portions of the film are brought down by the rotoscoping -- Moria built up tension admirably, I thought, especially with Gollum's creepy eyes shining in the dark and the quiet, subtle tapping Pippin awoke after dropping the stone down the well (something that I wish Jackson had kept in his adaptation. It works better, I think, for the Company to have awakened the orcs prior and have them spring the trap than how it pans out in Jackson's film), but when the rotoscoped orcs show up, obviously just goofy extras in ridiculous costumes, it punctures the tension like a balloon. In the scene where the Balrog is roaring and swaying about (more on that in a minute), there is an orc standing next to him that is obviously just a guy wearing a ratty old sheet.

Beyond the structural problems, there is just a lot of silliness that could have been avoided with someone critical and evaluative taking a closer look at the film. I know it was the 70's, but, c'mon, Aragorn and Boromir have no pants! Even when they're hiking in the snow! How does this make any sense at all? The film is full of extremely quick cuts to the hobbits' faces, showing unnecessary reaction shots or basically just them wiggling around for interminable periods of time. The scene where Merry and Pippin are being carried by the Ent comes to mind in particular -- it's 5 minutes of exposition, and the viewer isn't even able to see the Ent for most of that time, as the camera is focused solidly on the visually identical Merry and Pippin and their random grins (not timed to anything Treebeard is actually saying), claps (why would they clap when he says he does not like orcs?) and glances at one another. And -- it has to be mentioned -- while Aragorn is telling the hobbits the tale of Beren and Lúthien under Weathertop, Frodo and Sam are clutching one another, stroking each others' arms, and gazing into each others' eyes. Bakshi may have subscribed to that particular slash pairing, but I'm certain that Tolkien didn't, so leave it out! Gandalf, as well, enjoys a totally unnecessary pedophilic moment with Pippin in Moria, where he's stroking his face like a total creeper.

But beyond the structural problems and the silliness still lies the fact that the film does not succeed as a faithful Tolkien adaptation! First, I can understand why you would want to change the name from Saruman to "Aruman" ("Saruman"? "Sauron?" Too similar, Tolkien, too similar), but can you just be consistent with it? Half the time the characters are saying "Aruman" and half the time it's still "Saruman." The pronunciations are all wrong, from "Sauron" to "Celeborn." Flavor was cut where it should not have been -- for example, compare Gandalf's speech to the Balrog in Jackson's film to this one, where Gandalf's lines are identical to those in the book; "Flame of Ûdun" and references to "Anor" may mean nothing to the uninitiate, but reveal to everyone that Gandalf is wielding powers beyond that of just an ordinary sorcerer. The fact that they were cut from Bakshi's version deflates an already lackluster scene: the Balrog's too-large money head, elephant feet, tiny eyes, and goofy disproportionate wings do not a frightening villain make.

Just a bit on the Black Riders, by far the most successful elements of the film. The first scene where a Rider appears, where the Nazgûl senses the Ring while the hobbits are hiding under the tree-root, is so effective that Jackson copies it almost in its entirety for his film version. The rotoscoped costumes, once the Riders are finally revealed, do not quite hit the mark, but are outlandish and interesting. When the Riders present themselves in force and attack the inn at Bree, they are almost terrifying in their syncronicity. And finally, I found the use of background removal to be very powerful. Did you notice that there are actually 3 layers going on in those scenes? The normal landscape is removed to reveal the shattered moonscape in dark pastel colors, and then in the final confrontation at the Ford, that landscape too flickers in and out in time with the lightning bolts cracking behind the Riders as they appear to almost be riding against an utter void. Powerful stuff, in my opinion. Then as Frodo is finally vanquished and the Riders appear triumphant, the stark red background that replaces all the others is superimposed behind black horses' legs and bodies, with the red eyes of the horses and riders sometimes flashing across the black mass. This was all very striking imagery. These completely inhuman Riders I prefer, I think, to the brute-force warrior Riders that Jackson presents.

To sum up, there's a lot of bad in this film, but some good as well. I don't think I'll ever want to spend 2 and a half hours of my life watching it again. As we'll see, Jackson's "Fellowship" is head and shoulders above this mess any day of the week. But I think it was worth a re-watch, just this once, to revisit those childhood memories of mind and discover that… oh dear… that I wasted countless hours in front of the television ingesting this drivel… Well, when you put it that way, I'm not so sure anymore.