Re: Bakshi v PJ A Contest of Scripts

by Radaghast Wed Sep 23, 2015 1:47 am

Pettytyrant101 wrote:theres one thing being an expert Ranger, which is what we did get, and supernatural powers of foretelling the future. its completely different.- Figg

Aragorn is Numenorian, he has extra powers, such as those of healing. But just have it pay out as it does in the book- Aragorns initial objections to Moria are simple- he has been there before, it was fucking horrible and dreadful and he doesn't want to go. He has also clearly had bad feelings about it for a while (the debate over which of the two routes being an old one)- when he finally says he will go he does so stating that Gandalf has put no blame on him for the failure of his chosen route over, and its only then Aragorn goes onto say that maybe his final words on the matter will change Gandalfs mind- that its not for the Company he fears but for Gandalf personally if they enter the mines.
Now a viewer, just like the reader is free to see his as foresight on Aragorns part or just a bad feeling in his gut, but it works either way. Just as it works in the book to create a sense of jeopardy focused on Gandalf personally.

PJ only uses Saruman in his version as its a way to shoehorn Saruman into the story when he is absent, necessary for Pj as he had made Saruman the main bad guy of the first two films.

'having Gandalf straining against a door like he is going to have a dump, and then said door blowing up, is not subtle cinema.'

If that is what you see in your head when you read that scene then you have a shockingly poor imagination.

'when could he hear the words in the film? unless they do a cut away to orcs chattering, which is very silly.'

As I already said there is no need for any cutaway- it could be just orcs cries in the background, the information about it what it means is revealed in dialogue by Gandalf- there is no cut away in the book either.

He also gives Saruman a power he doesn't even give to Sauron: the power to cause an avalanche via a crystal ball Rolling Eyes

Also, to echo a point you made earlier, it makes no sense for Saruman to want to force them into the Mines. He doesn't have any presence or authority there. If he had the power to force them to go anywhere, it'd be through the Gap of Rohan.

by Radaghast Wed Sep 23, 2015 2:06 am

Mrs. Figg wrote:'having Gandalf straining against a door like he is going to have a dump, and then said door blowing up, is not subtle cinema.'

Classy

The door doesn't blow up, in any case. It's blown inward, by the Balrog, knocking Gandalf down the stairs. It also happens "offscreen".

by Forest Shepherd Wed Sep 23, 2015 2:31 am

"'having Gandalf straining against a door like he is going to have a dump, and then said door blowing up, is not subtle cinema.'"

and a

"Quoted for Truth"

:facepalm:

What is happening to the discussion!

by Radaghast Wed Sep 23, 2015 2:44 am

Just my way of expressing agreement. I am allowed to do that, no?

by Forest Shepherd Wed Sep 23, 2015 3:19 am

I just saw that video. Quite excellent back and forth between Boromir and Gandalf. Laughing

Looking at it again I do feel that the distance between Gandalf and the others is minimized due to the way the shots are framed (I forget the word for that, even though I know it) and angled. They appear to be quite near eachother in those close-ups, when the actual distance between them is quite large.

Notwithstanding, the fact that seeing that scene, even if only for a moment inside of a humorous video, still gives me the chills speaks I think to its power as cinema.

by Radaghast Wed Sep 23, 2015 10:59 am

Forest Shepherd wrote:Looking at it again I do feel that the distance between Gandalf and the others is minimized due to the way the shots are framed (I forget the word for that, even though I know it) and angled. They appear to be quite near eachother in those close-ups, when the actual distance between them is quite large.

That would make Gandalf's "Fly, you fools!" less feasible as being very effective; it's barely said above a whisper in the movie.

I do get Eldo's and FS's point about the close-up now and why the scene was changed now. The movie had affected my memory of the book scene, in which he is immediately dragged down; he does not, in fact, hang on at all, as I (mis)remembered. I guess the issue was would Gandalf believably be able to hold the weight of the Balrog for any length of time. I think they could have stretched believability if they really wanted a close-up that badly. Also, I don't think this absolves the scene of other problems. But I do get the point, now.

by Mrs Figg Wed Sep 23, 2015 4:29 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:theres one thing being an expert Ranger, which is what we did get, and supernatural powers of foretelling the future. its completely different.- Figg

Aragorn is Numenorian, he has extra powers, such as those of healing.

yeah I know.

But just have it pay out as it does in the book- Aragorns initial objections to Moria are simple- he has been there before, it was fucking horrible and dreadful and he doesn't want to go. He has also clearly had bad feelings about it for a while (the debate over which of the two routes being an old one)- when he finally says he will go he does so stating that Gandalf has put no blame on him for the failure of his chosen route over, and its only then Aragorn goes onto say that mafinal words on the matter will change Gandalfs mind- that its not for the Company he fears but for Gandalf personally if they enter the mines.

cinematically its far more effective having Saruman say the lines. It wastes time and doesn't add anything useful.

Now a viewer, just like the reader is free to see his as foresight on Aragorns part or just a bad feeling in his gut, but it works either way. Just as it works in the book to create a sense of jeopardy focused on Gandalf personally.

We don't need any more tension to that scene. For one good reason. I f they flagged up someone saying don't go in there its going to kill you people will be expecting trouble before it happens. people who haven't read the book don't know theres a bloody great monster in that pool, we need a false sense of security to surround them as they figure out how to get through the door. we need to be taken by surprise. Aragorn going on about doom beforehand, just ruins the tension, adds nothing, and plus theres a creepy enough atmosphere going on when Boromir tells Pippin not to throw stones into the pool.

PJ only uses Saruman in his version as its a way to shoehorn Saruman into the story when he is absent, necessary for Pj as he had made Saruman the main bad guy of the first two films.

and?

'having Gandalf straining against a door like he is going to have a dump, and then said door blowing up, is not subtle cinema.'

If that is what you see in your head when you read that scene then you have a shockingly poor imagination.

don't patronise me. do you have a selective sense of humour?

'when could he hear the words in the film? unless they do a cut away to orcs chattering, which is very silly.'

As I already said there is no need for any cutaway- it could be just orcs cries in the background, the information about it what it means is revealed in dialogue by Gandalf- there is no cut away in the book either.

by Mrs Figg Wed Sep 23, 2015 4:35 pm

Radaghast wrote:
Mrs. Figg wrote:'having Gandalf straining against a door like he is going to have a dump, and then said door blowing up, is not subtle cinema.'
Classy

Even Chaucer was vulgar.

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Sep 23, 2015 5:04 pm

It wastes time and doesn't add anything useful.- Figg

The debate scene adds a lot actually- iots where we find out about Balins expedition, it shows up the strains within the company about the route, as each member states their position it reveals character traits, and it foreshadows fears from Aragorn focused on Gandalf.
It adds quite a lot that is useful in fact. Which is one fo the reasons I was so surprised PJ left it out, even Bakshi saw the importance of it and found the time for it.

'I f they flagged up someone saying don't go in there its going to kill you people will be expecting trouble before it happens. people who haven't read the book don't know theres a bloody great monster in that pool, we need a false sense of security to surround them as they figure out how to get through the door. we need to be taken by surprise. Aragorn going on about doom beforehand, just ruins the tension, adds nothing,'

Um how it can be fine then for Saruman to do the foreshadowing? That's just Saruman instead of Aragorn flagging it up, and at least Aragorn doesn't show us a fucking picture of it before we've even got to the mines- that's not just flagging it up that's ruining the reveal too. Aragorn doesn't tell the reader what's in the mines, only he is afraid for Gandalf if Gandalf goes there.
Film Sarmuman tells us all about what's in the mines whilst they are still on Caradhras!
You argument makes no sense here.

'and?'

Its a change which seriously distorts how the narrative has to be told, in my view to its detriment- especially the Theatrical releases most folk saw which has him as the main villain for 2 films then never seen or heard from again. Thats just bad storytelling.

'don't patronise me. '

I wasn't, I was responding to what seemed to me a cheap method of reductionism towards making the book events sound absurdest in order to try to make a cheap point by denigrating the source material.
The events as described in the book are both adaptable and potentially highly cinematic if well carried out.
Your description is calculated to try to de-emphasis that fact through mockery.

by Radaghast Wed Sep 23, 2015 5:33 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Um how it can be fine then for Saruman to do the foreshadowing? That's just Saruman instead of Aragorn flagging it up, and at least Aragorn doesn't show us a fucking picture of it before we've even got to the mines- that's not just flagging it up that's ruining the reveal too. Aragorn doesn't tell the reader what's in the mines, only he is afraid for Gandalf if Gandalf goes there.
Film Sarmuman tells us all about what's in the mines whilst they are still on Caradhras!
You argument makes no sense here.

Per the script:

SARUMAN (V.O.)
Moria. You fear to go into those mines,
don't you? The dwarves delved too
greedily and too deep.

SARUMAN (V.O.) (CONT'D)
You know what they awoke in, the darkness
of Khazad-dum. Shadow and flame.

http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Lord-of-the-Rings-Fellowship-of-the-Ring,-The.html

Yup, a little too much info by Saruman, there.

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Sep 23, 2015 5:54 pm

And whilst he is saying all of this and PJ does yet another of his dramatic closeups of Gandalfs nose it intercuts with Sarumans 'Big Book of Handy Dramatic Tension Monster Manual Moments' TM showing us the Balrog!

Bakshi v PJ A Contest of Scripts - Page 8 Bal_zpstitezwhx

Bakshi v PJ A Contest of Scripts - Page 8 Bal_zpstitezwhx

But its absolutely typical of PJ lack of narrative patience in these films- he cant wait to get to his favourite bits (the spectacle) he has to shove in stuff earlier too that just ruins the moment when it does come- the Black Riders being another great example of telling and showing the viewer way too much way too soon, and ruining the mystery of their initial appearance and in so doing reducing their sense of dread).

by Radaghast Wed Sep 23, 2015 6:02 pm

LOL. I forgot about that picture. PJ might as well have had Saruman name the thing.

As far as ruining tension, Gandalf's disappearance is another example. Actually, there are two instances of that, and PJ ruins both of them.

by halfwise Wed Sep 23, 2015 6:13 pm

The pictures in Saruman's book were just a throwaway that nobody who didn't already know the book would pick up on, and I thought were a nice nod to those in the know. Don't overthink what a Tolkien newbie would pick up on - most of the things being complained about would only be noticed at a second or more likely third viewing.

Can be annoying to see the holes in retrospect, but as far as destroying tension....naw.

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Sep 23, 2015 6:19 pm

Can be annoying to see the holes in retrospect, but as far as destroying tension....naw.- Halfy

But we are talking here on a comparative scale, between what PJ gave us and what the source material offered him to adapt.
The argument here is that Aragorns foreshadowing in the debate scene PJ more or less completely screws up and leaves most of out, is a better way combined with all the other character things it reveals and the creation of tension within the Company right before Moria, than what PJ actually gives us with the Saruman doing the foreshadowing compete with silly book of illustrations.

O course partly this is down to how PJ often keeps parts of book scenes but subverts their narrative purpose- in this case Tolkiens narrative purpose is to demonstrate the tensions, show how each member votes in response to the dilemma, and sets up a foreboding centred on Gandalf's fate.
PJ on the otherhand is mainly concerned with keeping Saruman in the story. Which is why all we get left is the foreboding, and its not so much a foreboding any more as an actual heavy-handed foretelling with picture of the future included. And all the interesting character stuff coming out of the divisiveness over the rote is subverted into making Frodo, as the hero, proactive and deciding the route. Though why Pj feels the need to make Frodo pro-active here where it makes no sense to at all, when most of the time he takes all the pro-activeness away from Frodo's book character where it does make sense, is a mystery in itself.

by Radaghast Wed Sep 23, 2015 6:52 pm

That picture looks almost like it was from the Bakshi movie.

by halfwise Wed Sep 23, 2015 6:56 pm

The Bakshi movie had this ridiculous cut-out Balrog which would have fit right in with South Park.

by Mrs Figg Wed Sep 23, 2015 6:57 pm

I wasn't, I was responding to what seemed to me a cheap method of reductionism towards making the book events sound absurdest in order to try to make a cheap point by denigrating the source material.
The events as described in the book are both adaptable and potentially highly cinematic if well carried out.
Your description is calculated to try to de-emphasis that fact through mockery. petty

wind your neck in.

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Sep 23, 2015 7:04 pm

You accused me of patronising you, I was just explaining why that was not the case and what your statement struck me as.

'the Bakshi movie had this ridiculous cut-out Balrog which would have fit right in with South Park.'- Halfy

It certainly has its issues (didnt stop PJ nicking some more of Bakshi's camera angles though from that sequence) but the Balrog conforms to the rather weird logic of all the character looks, which is to take a trait of them or their people from the book and make it very literal- Boromir, seafaring people so looks Viking, Aragorn is a skilled tracker make him native American, the Balrog is described as having a mane, make his head like a lion. Its weird but it least its consistent I suppose.

by Radaghast Wed Sep 23, 2015 7:10 pm

I wonder where Bakshi got the "bunny slipper" look from. Also, the wings bring to my mind a butterfly above anything else.

Bakshi v PJ A Contest of Scripts - Page 8 Tumblr_ml9ynr09za1r2khteo1_540

Bakshi v PJ A Contest of Scripts - Page 8 Tumblr_ml9ynr09za1r2khteo1_540

by Forest Shepherd Wed Sep 23, 2015 7:47 pm

As often is the case, I prefer the Bakshi Dub. Wink

The Balrog's whip wraps around Gandalf's legs and he begins to fall.

Gandalf: "Catch me!!"

Aragorn leaps forward, missing the back of the wizards robes by inches as Gandalf slips off the ledge and down into the depths.

Gandalf: "You should have caught meee!"

by davidjoneshoward Thu Sep 24, 2015 12:41 am

Radaghast wrote:The movie had affected my memory of the book scene, in which he is immediately dragged down; he does not, in fact, hang on at all, as I (mis)remembered. I guess the issue was would Gandalf believably be able to hold the weight of the Balrog for any length of time. I think they could have stretched believability if they really wanted a close-up that badly.

Since the Balrog had a really long whip, I thought it would make sense that the Balrog throws up the whip maybe 1.5 seconds after he falls, instead of the 5 that we saw in the movie (from memory). It would explain why Gandalf could hang on for so long, because the whip is long enough so that the balrog hasn't fallen the length of it yet. (if you rule out the fact that the Balrog's weight is making him go considerably faster)

by Radaghast Thu Sep 24, 2015 2:59 am

I think it was much sooner than 5 seconds. And movieGandalf never has to hold the Balrog's weight so could have held on for much longer.

by halfwise Thu Sep 24, 2015 3:11 am

balrog's weight would only make him go faster if he's approaching terminal velocity, which is closer to 5 seconds than 1.5 seconds. But it's still an inordinately long whip.

by Eldorion Thu Sep 24, 2015 4:08 am

I'm delighted to see the amount of discussion this thread has generated over the past day; occasional headbutting aside, still having this much excitement over Tolkien topics is a good thing in my book.

Radaghast wrote:I don't think this particular novel is one that anyone should be allowed to played fast and loose with. It is the second-most popular, if not esteemed book in the world, after all. You've brought up the point that there would be no live action movie without Peter Jackson. Well, where would Peter Jackson be without The Lord of the Rings? Some of us actually do give a shit, and think he could have shown a bit more respect to the author's intent.

As I've said in numerous discussions on here over the years, I personally wish PJ had stuck closer to Tolkien. I also think there are plenty of places in the story where greater faithfulness would have resulted in better movies as well. But I spent long enough getting upset over those changes that they don't really bother me anymore. Obviously I see why others still feel differently, though there are other scenes where I think people sometimes get so hung up on the changes that they neglect to try to see what the filmmakers were going for and judging the films on that basis.

I do find your use of the word "allowed" to be rather curious. I mean, legally the situation is very clear (there's nothing in the contract that establishes faithfulness requirements; Tolkien considered this as a possibility but decided against it -- cf. "art or cash" in Letter 202). Morally, I guess the situation is kinda subjective, but IMO it's not like anyone is being hurt and I don't think abstract concepts like the level of respect accorded to an author by the literary establishment (about the only thing that was conceivably hurt by the movies) really merit protection under most moral frameworks.

[Full disclosure: this (the morality thing) is a point I would have agreed with you on several years ago but have fully changed my opinion on, as opposed to other purist issues where I still feel largely the same except for the level of importance I assign to various concerns.]

Radaghast wrote:I do get Eldo's and FS's point about the close-up now and why the scene was changed now. The movie had affected my memory of the book scene, in which he is immediately dragged down; he does not, in fact, hang on at all, as I (mis)remembered. I guess the issue was would Gandalf believably be able to hold the weight of the Balrog for any length of time. I think they could have stretched believability if they really wanted a close-up that badly. Also, I don't think this absolves the scene of other problems. But I do get the point, now.

by Eldorion Thu Sep 24, 2015 4:15 am

halfwise wrote:balrog's weight would only make him go faster if he's approaching terminal velocity, which is closer to 5 seconds than 1.5 seconds. But it's still an inordinately long whip.

Yeah, I think that would require a much longer whip than shown in the film. If PJ had wanted to cover all his nitpickable bases he could have shown the entire bridge collapsing from the damage dealt to it by the Balrog's weight and Gandalf's staff-smash spell, but I think it's pretty clear that PJ's priorities in this scene were with the emotional and dramatic elements rather than the "fridge logic" parts.