The LOTR TV Serial by Tosh

[Passdagas the Brown]

By the way, speaking of Lawrence of Arabia, I get to see it on the big screen this weekend!

Jealous!!! Where?

[yovargas]

I mean, why can't we expect just as much from a fantasy movie, than we do about a film about Lawrence of Arabia?

I hated Lawrence of Arabia.

yovargas, you have managed to articulate the only opinion about film that is actually illegal.

Gimme a cut with 70% less sand and I might recant!

[Frelga]

I mean, why can't we expect just as much from a fantasy movie, than we do about a film about Lawrence of Arabia?

I hated Lawrence of Arabia.

I got bored halfway through and never finished watching.

[Primula Baggins]

My mother was passionate about Lawrence of Arabia, so whenever it was on TV (this was before videotapes), she would watch it, and I'd watch it with her. So I'm certain I first saw it as a child, on a fuzzy 12-inch black-and-white TV. But it swept me up. I didn't "get" the story until I was older and had seen it a few more times.

Lots of sand, yes, yov, but some pretty compelling actors playing some really interesting characters. . . . And the music was gorgeous.

I would love to see it on the big screen. I've seen it once in HD. It made that famous long, looooong, real-time shot of Omar Sharif riding in from the desert work for me for the first time because I could see him out there from the start. On the B&W TV that scene was usually when I'd go make popcorn.

[kzer_za]

By the way, speaking of Lawrence of Arabia, I get to see it on the big screen this weekend!

Jealous!!! Where?

The Fox Theater in Atlanta. There are several places in or near Atlanta with classic movie screenings (a lot even for a large metro area, from what I've heard). This year I've seen M, On the Waterfront, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and a few others.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I hated Lawrence of Arabia.

yovargas, you have managed to articulate the only opinion about film that is actually illegal.

Gimme a cut with 70% less sand and I might recant!

Ah, well, I must be one of the desert-loving Americans then.

In many ways, all that sand - that extraordinarily sparse, pristine, barren desert environment, are part of what makes the "into the wild" nature of Lawrence's adventure so compelling. He was, in essence, a Took. Leaving the far green Shire that is England, and venturing into the desert to combat the were-wyrms. Though his trajectory is a bit different than any hobbit we know. More of a Took-to-Aragorn sort of thing!

[Passdagas the Brown]

By the way, speaking of Lawrence of Arabia, I get to see it on the big screen this weekend!

Jealous!!! Where?

The Fox Theater in Atlanta. There are several places in or near Atlanta with classic movie screenings (a lot even for a large metro area, from what I've heard). This year I've seen M, On the Waterfront, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and a few others.

That's wonderful. If there's anything that will make a city brighter, it's classic movie screenings.

Good on ATL!

[Passdagas the Brown]

And because my long-slumbering screenplay aspirations are getting a dose of support, here is a repost of my alternative "pre-Troll" sequence from the Hobbit. What is, in my mind, much better than the "meh" PJ gave us, and which highlights the simple fact that Thorin and Co's journey in the book was not a "leisurely stroll" and included some very real dangers. IMO, this makes the case that you didn't need to inject a half-baked orc chase into the plot. You could go with the real human tensions in the book, and also inject the story with the lyricism and charm it deserves. PJ got this right in Bag End, for the most part, but lost his way entirely once they were on the road.

Imagine a scene in the early evening. It's damp. The company is not in the highest of spirits, but they are setting up camp and generally getting along okay. Then, as the sun lowers in the sky, some of the ponies start to get nervous and fidgety. Some of the dwarves attempt to soothe them, to no avail. One of the dwarves is then called in: an expert on calming pack animals. He takes out a recorder, and plays a hauntingly beautiful tune. The rest of the dwarven company (or just a few) sing a deep, earthy and mysterious song. A gentle breeze crosses the moor, as the singing continues. The ponies gradually calm down. One of them goes to sleep. Relief, though tension over what's causing the nervousness.

Bilbo uneasily tries to sleep, wet and frightened. Finally, sleep. A short, sweet dream of Bag End unfolds. Bilbo pours himself a cup of tea, and raises it to his mouth.

Cut to Bilbo waking up in the early morning, startled at a sudden sound. All the pack ponies are gone, and one has just bolted. Bilbo calls out to the dwarves, and Fili and Kili, and a smattering of slower dwarves, attempt to chase down the pony.

Splash, it launches itself into a swollen river. A frenetic and dangerous chase into the water ensues. Fili and Kili nearly drown, and a few of the other dwarves nearly kill themselves going after them. Bilbo looks on - useless. The pack pony is drowned.

Cut to a scene of despair. Gandalf is gone, the food is gone. It's raining. Some angry and frustrated dialogue unfolds, while Bilbo shows no sign of being of any use - further aggravating the matter by complaining about this new turn of events.

A light appears off in the distance, deep in the wood. Could it be men and hospitality, or is it the thing that drove the ponies wild?

Time for Bilbo to prove his worth.

But to keep this relevant for the thread, I do think that a TV serial, even for the Hobbit (or perhaps "the Hobbit" as season 1, or season 1 and 2, of a "Middle Earth" series, that then moves into LOTR for the remaining seasons) is the best medium for adapting these books.

[Alatar]

Yes, we have an existential crisis facing Middle Earth, and that should be reason enough to join a quest like this one. But why these nine walkers? What about their personal history made them particularly keen, or well-suited, for this adventure?

In the book? Absolutely nothing except the fact that they were there. Legolas and Gimli were sent with messages, Boromir because of a dream. Because they happened to be there, they were sent on the quest as representatives of their peoples. In fact Boromir is only half on the quest and half on his way home. Merry and Pippin went against better judgement, and Sam because he would not be parted from Frodo. Only Gandalf and Aragorn have any real motivation for the quest.

I'm not arguing that they couldn't have more compelling backstories, but it would involve PJ inventing stuff which most people seem to think is a bad idea.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Yes, we have an existential crisis facing Middle Earth, and that should be reason enough to join a quest like this one. But why these nine walkers? What about their personal history made them particularly keen, or well-suited, for this adventure?

In the book? Absolutely nothing except the fact that they were there. Legolas and Gimli were sent with messages, Boromir because of a dream. Because they happened to be there, they were sent on the quest as representatives of their peoples. In fact Boromir is only half on the quest and half on his way home. Merry and Pippin went against better judgement, and Sam because he would not be parted from Frodo. Only Gandalf and Aragorn have any real motivation for the quest.

I'm not arguing that they couldn't have more compelling backstories, but it would involve PJ inventing stuff which most people seem to think is a bad idea.

Yes, in the book. "Absolutely nothing except the fact they were there" is just not true.

As I said earlier, there is not much of a need for invention - simply visualization.

Gimli - you say he was sent with messages. But there's far more than that in the book. Gloin tells a harrowing story of the visits from Sauron's emissary, and the dark threats delivered. Direct threats to Gimli's home, in essence. That makes it personal. A filmmaker could visualize this, and have Gimli be present for these horrifying exchanges (or even have Gimli be the one exchanging words with Sauron's minion). In that way, you make "Sauron's threat" personal for Gimli, and give us a visceral reason why he would join such an endeavor. I got that pretty strongly from the book - in the wonderful chapter that is the Council of Elrond. PJ and company adapted this horrendously, IMO. Missed a chance for great character intros.

Legolas - he was also "sent with messages" but that hardly does his backstory justice. In the books, we get a tale of Gollum's imprisonment and escape. The elves of Mirkwood were apparently aware of his significance, and his connection to Mordor, and were conscious of the great blunder that was his escape. If a good filmmaker didn't want to reveal too much of Gollum yet, he or she could still emphasize Mirkwood's closeness to the front lines, and Sauron's growing influence in the region again. The story could revolve around the increased presence of orcs near Thranduil's realm - the same orcs that helped Gollum get free. Again, visualize this and make it personal. It's in the book, and an adapter simply has to make it tangible.

Boromir - In the book, we have an understanding that both Boromir and Faramir had the same dream. Later, Boromir talks of Denethor, and the plight of Minas Tirith. We also know, because of later revelations, of Denethor's preference for Boromir, and his decision to sent his favorite son on this important quest. In the backdrop, you have Sauron's growing assertiveness, assaults on the marches in Ithilien, etc. Essentially, Gondor is being openly threatened. That exposition could be brought forward in the story narrative, and visualized as part of Boromir's introductory backstory, and as part of the rationale for his arrival in Rivendell.

In the film FOTR, there is no clear indication of why Legolas and Gimli are in Rivendell, and willing to go on the quest (never explained at all, actually), and only sketches of why Boromir is there (which is fleshed out a bit in the next two films).

In short, PJ would not have had to invent very much, as a lot of it is there in the Council of Elrond chapter. He simply would have had to adapt, for the purposes of giving some of his main characters more compelling purpose.

As for Merry and Pippin, I'm sorry, but the book is certainly not at fault here. Them running into Frodo and Sam in a cornfield does not measure up at all to the fleshed out friendship they enjoyed with Frodo in the book. It is clear in the book that they are fast friends, what with their assistance during Frodo's time of transition, etc. The book also makes it clear that they are more adventurous types. PJ gives a hint of that with their "firework" mischief, but that's more of an adolescent norm than an indication of a desire to see the world.

All in all, PJ did a poor job of introducing most of the Fellowship, IMO. There were some great opportunities to visualize a lot of the very evocative exposition we have in the book, and they were passed over in favor of extended horse/car chases, silly crumbling staircases, overdone villain plotting by Saruman, and overlong Uruk fights. I am not a professional filmmaker, but honestly, I do believe I could have at least written better scripts.

[Alatar]

I think you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this one. I never, ever, in all my readings of LotR, felt that there was a good reason for the chosen members of the fellowship. Apart from the fact the they were in the right place at the right time. I know (and don't need it explained to me thanks) what the messages they brought were, but they were still just messengers who had no plan or intent to go on an epic quest to save the world. Which is pretty much how they came across in the movie. (With the exception of Boromir who comes across far better in the movie than he did in the book, where he was essentially an arrogant jerk whose only purpose was to show how dangerous the ring was. What was that quote from Bored of the Rings again? "Five-eleven's your height, one-ninety your weight, you cash in your chips around page eighty-eight")

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Nor would it possible, in films designed to be commercial success, to spend the kind of time necessary to do that kind of backstory.

Basically, all of your cries that Jackson is a terrible filmmaker come down to the fact that he makes films that balance art and commercialism, and that offends your sensibilities. By every objective standard, the LOTR films show Jackson to be a tremendous filmmaker of the type of films that he makes (and arguably the only type of films that successfully could be made of LOTR). You just don't like those type of films. Fair enough. But instead of calling Jackson a terrible filmmaker, just say that you don't care for the type of films that he makes.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Nor would it possible, in films designed to be commercial success, to spend the kind of time necessary to do that kind of backstory.

Basically, all of your cries that Jackson is a terrible filmmaker come down to the fact that he makes films that balance art and commercialism, and that offends your sensibilities. By every objective standard, the LOTR films show Jackson to be a tremendous filmmaker of the type of films that he makes (and arguably the only type of films that successfully could be made of LOTR). You just don't like those type of films. Fair enough. But instead of calling Jackson a terrible filmmaker, just say that you don't care for the type of films that he makes.

I disagree with that assessment.

All of my suggestions for visualizing backstory, etc, are perfectly consistent with storytelling in many a successful blockbuster film. I am arguing that there should have been more "show," and less "tell." Or some more show, where there wasn't even any tell.

I don't see why audiences would not have been thrilled by such epic introductions. Scenes of Sauron's horrible emissary making threats to dwarves in their majestic mountain home, orcs attacking elves in Mirkwood, and hints of the growing fear of men in their ancient fortress city that overlooks the Mountains of Shadow, are about as epically cinematic as one can get. When you combine that with the simple fact that such scenes would result in an audience being more invested in the fellowship, you have a win for both artistry and commercialism.

It seems a bit easy to say that most alternative visions for the LOTR films are not "commercially viable." But I never hear much, in terms of substance, about why?

Why would the ideas I suggested NOT make for commercially viable cinema?

Lastly, you're right. I don't care for the kind of films PJ makes. But I take it a step further because I actually think he's not so good at making the kind of film he wants to make, either. He seems so conflicted about following his own style, vs. following Tolkien vs. pleasing his fans or pleasing his actors, that he makes films that are internally very inconsistent. They feel like they were made in committee, not by someone with a free vision. That is why I think he is a bad filmmaker. For me, it's hard to believe that the man who filmed the scene of Bilbo waking up the morning after the dwarves' visit, is the same filmmaker who gave us the Great Goblin's "that'll do it."

I rate artistic consistency highly in determining whether a filmmaker is good or not. PJ doesn't meet that criteria, so I actually believe he's not a very good craftsman of film.

IMO, of course. But I feel strongly about it, and 96% at rotten tomatoes doesn't change that.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I think you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this one. I never, ever, in all my readings of LotR, felt that there was a good reason for the chosen members of the fellowship. Apart from the fact the they were in the right place at the right time. I know (and don't need it explained to me thanks) what the messages they brought were, but they were still just messengers who had no plan or intent to go on an epic quest to save the world. Which is pretty much how they came across in the movie. (With the exception of Boromir who comes across far better in the movie than he did in the book, where he was essentially an arrogant jerk whose only purpose was to show how dangerous the ring was. What was that quote from Bored of the Rings again? "Five-eleven's your height, one-ninety your weight, you cash in your chips around page eighty-eight")

I'm not sure I understand the disagreement.

My point is that there is a lot more in the books, in terms of explaining the fellowship's backstory and rationale for being at the Council of Elrond, and for being concerned about Sauron's growing influence, than there is in the film.

That's not a matter of opinion. It's simply a fact, as the film explains absolutely nothing about Gimli's and Legolas' background. Not one thing.

Beyond that, my point is that PJ, as a filmmaker, should have adapted the books in such a way that would viscerally connect that exposition that we have at the Council, to their personal motivations for joining. The best way to do that, IMO, would be to visualize their backstories, and place the characters (Legolas, Gimli and Boromir) at the center of those backstories. Having Gimli treat with Sauron's emissary, for example, is a change from the book, but one that would be good for the film. IMO, that would be good adaptation of the books, in my view.

I am not a "literal purist," but a "tone purist." I believe in changes and excisions as a necessary part of the adaptation process. And in that context, I think PJ did a poor job.

[yovargas]

I like the idea in theory but at some point you just gotta get your story going and this far into the movie would not have been a good place to add more subplots. I suspect they'd just halt the momentum of a story who's momentum is very hard to maintain.

I agree, though, that a little more intro would've been good but just some quick "why we're here" stuff from the mains.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I like the idea in theory but at some point you just gotta get your story going and this far into the movie would not have been a good place to add more subplots. I suspect they'd just halt the momentum of a story who's momentum is very hard to maintain.

I agree, though, that a little more intro would've been good but just some quick "why we're here" stuff from the mains.

Sure, but I think the momentum is harder to maintain when a story is primarily people walking from west to east, which is the general impression of film FOTR. The Council is a great place, IMO, to pause and re-energize the story with new and compelling characters. PJ introduces those characters, but not in a compelling way. Arguably, the Council of Elrond, as PJ filmed it, is far less cinematic than a Council of Elrond with flashbacks. The "talking shop" that is the film version of the Council, IMO, does indeed cause problems with the film's momentum. An epic depiction of the backstories of these cool new characters could have blown the socks off an audience, and got them very, very interested in what this fellowship was going to do next.

Instead, we get wooden Elrond boringly describing the "threat of Mordor," some new characters yammering and bickering a bit, those same new characters suddenly pledging allegiance to Frodo, standing for a group photo, and then walking east.

Boring!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

But I feel strongly about it, and 96% at rotten tomatoes doesn't change that.

So your argument is that 50,000 Elvis fans can be wrong?

[Passdagas the Brown]

But I feel strongly about it, and 96% at rotten tomatoes doesn't change that.

So your argument is that 50,000 Elvis fans can be wrong?

Once again, V, you strike at the heart of things.

[Passdagas the Brown]

This excerpt from the Council of Elrond, which comes from Gloin's account, is not only super-cinematic, if visualized. It accomplishes a number of narrative goals.

'Then about a year ago a messenger came to Dain, but not from Moria - from Mordor: a horseman in the night, who called Dain to his gate. The Lord Sauron the Great, so he said, wished for our friendship. Rings he would give for it, such as he gave of old. And he asked urgently concerning hobbits, of what kind they were, and where they dwelt. "For Sauron knows," said he, "that one of these was known to you on a time."

'At this we were greatly troubled, and we gave no answer. And then his fell voice was lowered, and he would have sweetened it if he could. "as a small token only of your friendship Sauron asks this," he said: "that you should find this thief," such was his word, "and get from him, willing or no, a little ring, the least of rings, that once he stole. It is but a trifle that Sauron fancies, and an earnest of your good will. Find it, and three rings that the Dwarf-sires possessed of old shall be returned to you, and the realm of Moria shall be yours for ever. Find only news of the thief, whether he still lives and where, and you shall have great reward and lasting friendship from the Lord. Refuse, and things will not seem so well. Do you refuse?"

'At this his breath came like the hiss of snakes, and all who stood by shuddered, but Dain said: "I say neither yea nor nay. I must consider this message and what it means under its fair cloak."

Such a flashback would accomplished a number of cinematic positives. I can think of ten:

1. It is really really cool. Just an excellently creepy and epic scene.
2. It connects the story of the dwarves - and if visualized to include Gimli in the scene with Dain and the emissary, the story of Gimli - to the story of the Ring, and of the hobbits.
3. It simply explains what Gimli is doing in Rivendell.
4. It gives us a personalized view of why Gimli would be invested in a near-suicide quest to destroy the Ring. After all, if they don't try, it looks like Sauron is going to unleash holy hell on everyone anyway.
5. It visualizes the threat of Sauron not just to Frodo, as we saw with the Black Riders, but to the broader peoples of Middle Earth. In the film, Elrond merely announces this threat in the abstract. In this sense, the film gains momentum, and is elevated from a dangerous road journey, to a film about an existential threat to the world these people inhabit. And it does so visually. "Show, don't tell."
6. It is better than Agent Smith delivering hacked up lines about "the threat of Morrrrdor."
7. It gives us a sense of the depth of Middle Earth, and eases the otherwise very linear thrust of the story. There have been many jokes about FOTR being about people walking and walking and walking, and this sort of "broadening of the picture" could work wonders to alleviate that. In fact, some say this is one of the key strengths of the world-building in the Game of Thrones TV series. It seems like a much bigger, and more fleshed out world than PJ's Middle Earth, because we visit fully-realized locations across the map (though it all comes nowhere close to the depth of Tolkien's Middle Earth).
8. It highlights the personal connection between Gimli, the dwarves and the hobbits (and Frodo, via Bilbo)
9. It hints at the mystery of Moria - which we will encounter later in the film.
10. Last but not least, it actually raises some questions about the dwarves' intentions, which introduces some additional tension to the story. Has Dain decided how to respond to Sauron? Is he still assessing whether or not to give him news of the hobbits, and the Ring? Are they willing to defy Sauron, and if so, might they not be interested in the Ring themselves? This plays into one of the central tensions in the FOTR film - that between the Fellowship members, Frodo and the Ring.

Yes, it would have been much easier to do this in a TV version. However, we forget that FOTR is very, very long, even in its theatrical form. There was certainly time to include such cinematic character and story-building, if the filmmakers' priorities were slightly different. Despite the commonly-repeated theme PJ and company encourage, LOTR is very filmable, and very cinematic.

Honestly, I do burn with ideas about how much better these films could have been. It is easy to lapse into the mindset that PJ and company made most of their decisions out of necessity. In my view, they are just a few artists, with above-average skill at getting movies made. I do not treat them as gods, or as extraordinary filmmakers. I believe there are lots of writers and filmmakers who could have produced a much more compelling, and just as lucrative, version of LOTR and the Hobbit.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In my view, they are just a few artists, with above-average skill at getting movies made. I do not treat them as gods, or as extraordinary filmmakers. I believe there are lots of writers and filmmakers who could have produced a much more compelling, and just as lucrative, version of LOTR and the Hobbit.

This is a much more reasonable opinion than "Jackson is a very bad filmmaker." I probably would come very close to expressing almost the same opinion myself. But that is beside the point. The point is that, while this is still a completely subjective opinion, it is a defensible one. The original "Jackson is a very bad filmmaker" statement is, in my opinion, indefensible hyperbole.