Learning from Peter Jackson

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by smaug_the_magnificent
This does not make any sense...

Does he ever make sense?

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
However, in the case of Theoden, Tolkien never described Saruman coming directly into contact with the King causing his decline.

True, if Tolkien didn't mention Saruman coming directly in contact with Théoden at that time, this could advocate that Théoden's affliction wasn't directly caused by Saruman persuasive voice and that discussions about the quality of Saruman's voice may be therefore slightly out of place here.

However, Théoden's little possession scene in the movie with Saruman speaking through Théoden rather clearly showed direct contact if any.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Eärniel
However, Théoden's little possession scene in the movie with Saruman speaking through Théoden rather clearly showed direct contact if any.

Since the passage from Tolkien was referring to the persuasive power of Saruman's voice, only direct physical contact would pertain to the scene we are discussing.

Once again, you are entitled to your opinions. Simply repect the fact that Peter Jackson's own in this matter are just as valid as you and your eye-rolling friends.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Since the passage from Tolkien was referring to the persuasive power of Saruman's voice, only direct physical contact would pertain to the scene we are discussing.

Once again, you are entitled to your opinions. Simply repect the fact that Peter Jackson's own in this matter are just as valid as you and your eye-rolling friends.

Sorry - but it is NOT valid. IN NO way does Tolkien describe a fight between Saruman and Gandalf. Please read the books if you want to talk about what is valid. You are talking out your a$$.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Sorry - but it is NOT valid. IN NO way does Tolkien describe a fight between Saruman and Gandalf. Please read the books if you want to talk about what is valid. You are talking out your a$$.

You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, jerseydevil. Tolkien DID NOT describe a fight between Saruman and Gandalf. Guess what? Storytelling works in books but doesn't work very well in movies. Audience want to SEE what happened. So it was more important for Jackson to visually show the audience Gandalf's capture by Saruman than to allow your personal little fantasy of what actually happened go unchallenged.

Frankly, PJ's assumptions of how Gandalf dealt with the situation appear much more likely than your meek "I accept my fate" assumptions of how Gandalf responded. I find it interesting that the mere fact your version of the story has been questioned has clearly gotten you spooked. Guess its a different story when the tables are turned.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, jerseydevil. Tolkien DID NOT describe a fight between Saruman and Gandalf. Guess what? Storytelling works in books but doesn't work very well in movies. Audience want to SEE what happened. So it was more important for Jackson to visually show the audience Gandalf's capture by Saruman than to allow your personal little fantasy of what actually happened go unchallenged.

It wasn't important to Jackson at all. He just a director of action/horror movies and that's what he went with because that's what he knows. It coudl have been done in an intelligent way. You are the one who can't accept that facxt that MOST people have a problem with MANY of the things that Jackson did.

Frankly, PJ's assumptions of how Gandalf dealt with the situation appear much more likely than your meek "I accept my fate" assumptions of how Gandalf responded. I find it interesting that the mere fact your version of the story has been questioned has clearly gotten you spooked. Guess its a different story when the tables are turned.

It doesn't spook me. That is again another ridiculous statement by you. As I said the only thing that jackson could produce was an action film - hence - he went with the exorcism scene. I'll say it again - please read the books, because it is quite obvious you have never read them. Jackson did NOT have to produce that scene like that.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Once again, you are entitled to your opinions.

Why thank you.

Simply repect the fact that Peter Jackson's own in this matter are just as valid as you and your eye-rolling friends.

Oh, I quite respect that Peter Jackson has as much right on his opinions as me and that they are as valid as my own. I never stated otherwise. However, there's IMO a difference between an opinion, an interpretation and a downright change of material.


EDIT: Also... I have eye-rolling friends?

[mithrand1r]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, jerseydevil. Tolkien DID NOT describe a fight between Saruman and Gandalf. Guess what? Storytelling works in books but doesn't work very well in movies. Audience want to SEE what happened. So it was more important for Jackson to visually show the audience Gandalf's capture by Saruman than to allow your personal little fantasy of what actually happened go unchallenged.

. . .

BB,

I will disagree with you on the point: Audience want to SEE what happened.

In some cases it is more effective not to show something or leave something implied.

Two examples:

StarWars:ANH did this very well. (ie the princess time in the Death Star.)

Alfred Hitchcock (sp?) was very effective in his movies with not showing everything to the viewer or just using an implication and leaving the viewer to guess/imagine what has/is happening.

The wizard duel was not bad per se. It just was not necessary.
Time spent on duel could have been spent in other areas of Bringing the book to film. (gift giving scene comes to mind.)

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Originally posted by Mithrand1R
"The wizard duel was not bad per se. It just was not necessary.
Time spent on duel could have been spent in other areas of Bringing the book to film. (gift giving scene comes to mind.)"

________________________________________________
EXACTLY! That's what is aggravating at times. Considerable time is taken with fight scenes (Helm's Deep, Parth Galen, etc.) that then called for cutting out or editing of other areas.

I still think PJ made a good movie adaptation (much better then I thought it would be) but it could have been very good. And perhaps ROTK will atone for much of the second half of TT. Certainly the care taken to recreate Middle-earth is a great achievement. it's just clear that at times he gets carried away with action for its own sake. And no need to feel too sorry for PJ getting some negative criticism, the hard work put into the films have made him a multi-millionaire and a hot directing commodity.

[Lizra]

Ha! Laughing all the way to the bank, that's for sure! I skip lots of battle when I read, so having to sit through ugly uruks stomping and chomping at the movie was a pain! Gotta take the good with the bad, but I'd say my cup was much more full than empty.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by mithrand1r
BB, I will disagree with you on the point: Audience want to SEE what happened.

In some cases it is more effective not to show something or leave something implied. StarWars:ANH did this very well. (ie the princess time in the Death Star.)

In Star Wars, Princess Leia's capture was very different from Gandalf's. In SW, all George Lucas needed to do to establish the situation for the audience was show a Princess being captured by bad guy, Darth Vader. All we needed to learn after that was that she was imprisoned in the Deathstar.

In contrast, Peter Jackson needed to use the scene in question in FOTR to do much more than have bad guy capture good guy. He needed to establish that the head of Gandalf's order, the wizard Saruman, is a traitorous enemy, not a friend. The movie audience needs to know that: a) Gandalf was caught off guard by Saruman's treason; b) he was in fear for Frodo upon learning the Nine were headed for the Shire; and c) that Gandalf the Grey was no match for Saruman.

Simply shifting from Gandalf's discussion with Saruman to the wizard atop Orthanc would have left too many plot holes. It is this kind of attention to the story that separates okay directors from great ones like Peter Jackson.

[Black Breathalizer]

We see a makeshift film studio in a kid's basement bedroom somewhere in New Jersey where famed Mooter film director, jerseydevil, is filming HIS non-action adventure film version of the Lord of the Rings. The director is in the process of filming Gandalf’s capture by Saruman…

Christopher Lee: …they will find the ring and KILL the one who carries it.

(A look of concern crosses Ian McKellan’s face…)

Ian McKellan: Frodo!!!

Christopher Lee: You must join with me, Gandalf. With the one ring, we can stop Sauron and rule Middle-Earth together.

Ian McKellan: Only one finger can wear the one ring so don’t bother saying “we.”

Christopher Lee: So be it. I gave you a chance to aid me willingly. You shall remain here in Orthanc until you have a change of heart. Hand over your staff.

(The camera gives us another close-up of Ian McKellan’s face. The old wizard expression reflects a mixture of agony and resignation. He reluctantly hands over his staff. Saruman takes the staff with an evil smile as a group of uruks appear behind Gandalf.)

Christopher Lee: Take him to the pinnacle of Orthanc!!!

Orc Captain: Yes, Master.

Ian McKellan: This is madness, Saruman! Let me go!

Christopher Lee: (with a sneer) Good-bye, my old friend.

(Saruman watches Gandalf being taken away.)

Christopher Lee: (with utter contempt) Hell, the old fool didn't even put up a fight! The ringbearer is in mortal danger for crying out loud and Gandalf the Wimp hands me his frickin' staff!!! What a total wuss!!!!!!

jerseydevil: CUT! That was perfect…uh, except for that last line, Drac. I don’t need any impromptu editorial comments about my screenplay. Everyone knows my version of events is true-blue Tolkien, not like that hack Jackson.

Christopher Lee: (rolling his eyes) yeah, riiiiiiiight, kiddo.

[mithrand1r]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by mithrand1r
BB, I will disagree with you on the point: Audience want to SEE what happened.

In some cases it is more effective not to show something or leave something implied. StarWars:ANH did this very well. (ie the
princess time in the Death Star.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
In Star Wars, Princess Leia's capture was very different from Gandalf's. In SW, all George Lucas needed to do to

establish the situation for the audience was show a Princess being captured by bad guy, Darth Vader. All we needed to learn
after that was that she was imprisoned in the Deathstar.

In contrast, Peter Jackson needed to use the scene in question in FOTR to do much more than have bad guy capture good guy.

He needed to establish that the head of Gandalf's order, the wizard Saruman, is a traitorous enemy, not a friend. The movie
audience needs to know that: a) Gandalf was caught off guard by Saruman's treason; b) he was in fear for Frodo upon learning
the Nine were headed for the Shire; and c) that Gandalf the Grey was no match for Saruman.

Simply shifting from Gandalf's discussion with Saruman to the wizard atop Orthanc would have left too many plot holes. It is
this kind of attention to the story that separates okay directors from great ones like Peter Jackson.

Actually the part in SW:ANH I was alluding to was the scene where you see Vader leaving the princess' prison cell and the
Interrogation droid (with a visible needle) approaches Leia (sp?)
I think it was more effective for us to imagine what the interrogation droid did to Leia than for the film to show us what
the droid did to Leia.

The ironic thing with your reply is that the movie could have had Gandalf tell the council (using your text almost exactly)
what caused him to be unavailable in assisting Frodo&Co. on their trip to Rivendell in the 30-60 seconds it took me to read
your text.

I was actually thinking of not even showing Gandalf meet Saruman.

Is having Gandalf recount his tale later in film as visually "Wowing" as a duel between two wizards? IMO no. But if one followed the text in the manner that JRRT wrote it you could achieve the following.

Fordo&Co. (& the non-book reader movie viewer) does not know what happened to Gandalf. This uncertainty adds to the tension.
IMO.

Time from the Wizard Duel can be used to bring out other parts of LOTR to enrich the experience of the viewer (the gift giving scene is one example that come to mind) with the story/environment of LOTR.

It does not necessarily need to be spelled out that . . . the Nine were headed for the Shire. I think part of that was covered by the discussion that Gandalf had with Frodo @ bagend.
Being told that Frodo had to leave the Shire because he "enemy" was coming should be enough motivation for Frodo to leave.

This may require more effort on the viewer, but I think it would have been worth the effort.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
We see a makeshift film studio in a kid's basement bedroom somewhere in New Jersey where famed Mooter film director, jerseydevil, is filming HIS non-action adventure film version of the Lord of the Rings. The director is in the process of filming Gandalf’s capture by Saruman…

YOur posts aren't even worth discussing anymore because you have obviously never read the books but have no problem telling why Jackson could only do it the way he did it. There are MANY ways of producing a movie - Jackson chose to produce the action movie side of it. I will be waiting for the more intelligent movie to come out.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by mithrand1r
Actually the part in SW:ANH I was alluding to was the scene where you see Vader leaving the princess' prison cell and the
Interrogation droid (with a visible needle) approaches Leia (sp?)
I think it was more effective for us to imagine what the interrogation droid did to Leia than for the film to show us what
the droid did to Leia.

The ironic thing with your reply is that the movie could have had Gandalf tell the council (using your text almost exactly)
what caused him to be unavailable in assisting Frodo&Co. on their trip to Rivendell in the 30-60 seconds it took me to read
your text.

I was actually thinking of not even showing Gandalf meet Saruman.

Is having Gandalf recount his tale later in film as visually "Wowing" as a duel between two wizards? IMO no.

Fordo&Co. (& the non-book reader movie viewer) does not know what happened to Gandalf. This uncertainty adds to the tension.
IMO.

Interesting post, mithrand1r

A couple thoughts:

I am not saying that the way Peter Jackson chose to handle Gandalf's capture by Saruman was necessarily the best way the scenes could have been filmed. My point is simply that PJ believed a wizard duel took place and the facts, as laid out by Tolkien himself, point to the same conclusion.

I agree with your notion that growing tension about 'where is Gandalf?' (for Frodo AND the audience) could have strengthened the drama of Frodo's journey to Rivendell. But I disagree that the audience doesn't need to see Gandalf and Saruman together. Perhaps it could have been told in flashback at the Council of Elrond but I don't think you can capture the essence of the story without showing Gandalf's and Saruman's meeting at Orthanc.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I agree with your notion that growing tension about 'where is Gandalf?' (for Frodo AND the audience) could have strengthened the drama of Frodo's journey to Rivendell. But I disagree that the audience doesn't need to see Gandalf and Saruman together. Perhaps it could have been told in flashback at the Council of Elrond but I don't think you can capture the essence of the story without showing Gandalf's and Saruman's meeting at Orthanc.

What do you think I have ALWAYS said?

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
My point is simply that PJ believed a wizard duel took place and the facts, as laid out by Tolkien himself, point to the same conclusion.

I find this a strange conclusion. Why would he have to actually believe a wizard duel took place? Couldn't this just be that -though Jackson probably studied the book in relative detail before making the film- he just decided to change that scene to make it according to his own opinion more attractive to the movie-public?

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Eärniel
I find this a strange conclusion. Why would he have to actually believe a wizard duel took place? Couldn't this just be that -though Jackson probably studied the book in relative detail before making the film- he just decided to change that scene to make it according to his own opinion more attractive to the movie-public?

A strange conclusion would have been to assume any scenario that had Gandalf surrendering to Saruman WITHOUT a struggle or fight. How people here can claim to know Tolkien and yet believe that Tolkien's Gandalf the Grey wouldn't have done everything in his power to get away from Saruman's sanctuary in order to help Frodo is beyond me.