LOTR - Fellowship of the Ring - Screencap Thingie

halfwise wrote:{{ nice to see someone giving Petty a dose of his own medicine! }}

Oi! what am I, chopped liver?!

{{ It's nice to see someone NEW giving Petty a dose of his own medicine. }}

oh...well....um yeah.

go for it Forest! take on the mantle of crabbit!

("Those men on gray horses are terrifying.")

Okay now you're just baiting me

But I'll not bite, I'll just sink back into the foliage.

Q lasse 'leaf' (S las); pl. lassi (S lais). It is only applied to certain kinds of leaves, especially those of trees, and would not e.g. be used of leaf of a hyacinth (linque). It is thus possibly related to LAS 'listen', and S-LAS stem of Elvish words for 'ear'; Q hlas, dual hlaru. Sindarin dual lhaw, singular lhewig.

lasse 'leaf'.

JRR Tolkien, Words Phrases And Passages

Eldorion wrote:
I wouldn't expect a screenwriter for an adaptation to go digging through that level of esoterica, nor do I think it would really have benefited the film's quality.  I mean, there's enough stuff to worry about in terms of trying to adjust the story for the new medium (though I agree that not all of PJ's adjusting was necessary) and design the whole world of the film.  Does anyone complain that Jackson's Merry says that Brandywine Bridge is 20 miles from Buckleberry Ferry, as is stated in some editions of the book, even though Tolkien's true intention was for it to be 10 miles and most editions were eventually updated to reflect this?  I mean, I'm sure some people do, but I'm not sure if the level of devotion needed to explore that kind of minutiae can really coexist with the kind of artistic sensibilities needed to make the tough decisions of adaptation.

That's certainly true Eldo, looking at my last post I think I was a little unfair on Jackson and co, for someone who discovered middle earth and Tolkien though the films, I can be a bit of a hardarse purist at times...

'the battles in the Lord of the Rings are most certainly more epic than those depicted in Waterloo because the characters in LotR actually engage in the battles, rather than sit back and make jingoistic rallies about their men and comments that can come across as ridiculous ("Those men on gray horses are terrifying." "They are the noblest cavalry in Europe, and the worst led." "That may be. That may be...").'- Forest

You see there is a lesson in crabbit to be had here, one I am of course about to give    in all good crabbit intentions. Because crabbit is a learning process, especially for those non-Scots not grounded in it. And provoking crabbit in them can lead to its misuse- see Mrs Figg  
You do admittedly share this with Figg, making Halfy's comment particularly pertinent- as both you and Figgs do have a habit of directing your crabbit at things I did not in fact say, or you simply shift the goalposts and accuse me of not shooting at the new goal.

Here you use the example I gave of Waterloo and then dismiss it for the following reasons- 'because the characters in LotR actually engage in the battles, rather than sit back and make jingoistic rallies about their men and comments that can come across as ridiculous'.

But we must, I am afraid, ask ourselves, 'to what was I putting the clip as an example of?'

Well it was in response to this from you- 'I was taken aback at the scale of things, and how amazing the battlefield looked in comparison to, say, Braveheart which was probably my standard for big battle scenes at the time.'

Nowhere do you mention narrative, characters, dialogue. You do however mention 'the scale of things' and 'how amazing the battlefield looked'

Now it seems to me, as Waterloo is a life size recreation of the actual battle and unit movements as known, using many thousands of actual Russian troops, on the original scale, with real people and explosions and horses and no cgi that it rather fulfils the required criteria.

But hey, lets shoot for the new goals!

Heres some that meet old and new criteria-

Lets start early, say 1930's -

All Quiet on the Western Front-



One of many huge epics of its time with casts of thousands, Spartacus-




A Bridge To Far



I can actually remember the moment my jaw dropped watching this for the first time, my uncle was a para and used to tell me war stories when I was kid and he talked about the sheer number of them in the air. I asked him if it was really like that, and he said 'they got it almost exactly right' I of course made the mistake of asking what the difference was and he replied, "all their chutes opened.' I didn't press him on it.  

Battle of Neretva (10,000 extras and as many tanks as they could lay their hands on!)



Now these are merely further examples- there are some real cracking Eastern films with amazing huge scale battles. And as these are all recognised as classic films we can dismiss the notion they are badly written or performed, even though neither of those things were in the initial definition you posed.

Now, I forsee some whining here in some quarters, that these are all 'war films' and yes they are indeed, but again nowhere have you stated that it was fantasy battles in movies alone you were referring to, given Braveheart, your example, is based on the historical Battle of Stirling Bridge.

And included in my reply is part of my contention that PJ's battles were not epic in either scale, or quality of battlefield representation (even forgetting the book) than other movie battles I was already used to seeing pre-cgi. And therefore did not impress on those levels.

And if PJ had attained anything like the tone of any of the above examples in LOtR's I would have been a hell of a lot happier.
But as PJ proved emphatically with TH he has no ability to handle tone.
So for every moment of realism- the build up to Helms Deep say- there is is a Legolas surfing a shield- for every charge of the Rohirrim there is a cgi Legolas on a cgi Mumakil cracking one liners, or a Denethor running half a mile on fire for the sake of a 'cool' shot.

LotR's when its dark needs to be dark.
Orcs are not brutish, they are brutal.
Orcs dont kill you because you are the enemy, orcs tear you apart because that's what they enjoy doing, they delight in destruction as Legolas says of them in the pursuit across Rohan. The battles need to be as real as the rest of the world, and just as horrendous, as do orcs.
If your going to make Lotr's it ain't a PG story, it ain't even PG-13.

Tolkien isn't just the author who gives us Lothlorien, poetry and the light of the West, he gives us orcs who trample other orcs to death, repeatedly stab at their body and then their corpse and out of sheer delight and pleasure in the act then lick all the blood from its gory blade. Tolkien can be down right  nasty at times. Because if the dark isn't as dark, or very nearly as dark, as the light is light then the whole underlying theology and sense of reality is thrown out.

The world Tolien creates feels real because its supposed to be this one. And its real at all extremes, from language, to fauna, to good times, to horrendous ones. There is no shirking in describing things at any end. Any adaptation of it should reflect that.

PJ's battles fail your criteria on all counts- scale- scale has been done before and more realistically because it was recreated for real and because it followed the battles as they were recorded to have happened. Battlefield- as Waterloo shows battlefields have been depicted, full scale, and with units in place and the right landscape for where they were said to be set, and more accurately.,
PJ's film battles do not once follow the events of the book, the tactics deployed, or even often have the right people involved.
And to assault your new criteria further- narrative and character. Here we have Pj's worst failing in his battles.

Helms Deep- there is no Eomer, there is no Hama (book version) to get hewn before the gates, there is no Gamling, so there is no parley scene, there are no conversations about the Wild Men, there are no discussions of tactics. In fact nearly all the books character moments from the battle are absent.

In there place we have PJ's character moments- which include, and I wish it were a joke- a contrived 'everyone thinks Aragorn is dead' section, a rushed declaration of love which utterly destroys not only the pacing of the books declaration but ruins the departure scene as it doesn't leave her anything actually important to say, and some sort of fall out make up bromance between Aragorn and Legolas.

Now I grant you these are character moments, there all the wrong ones, but they are character moments. What's really important to note about them however to the crabbit, their one defining factor, is just how shit they all are. Seriously, go back a paragraph and read the list again of what PJ replaced the books characters and moments with. See, they are all really shit ideas.

PJ loses badly on character and narrative within battle scenes, not just in comparison to films which have gone before him, but especially in comparison to the book he is supposed to be adapting.

Now Forest I hope this reply has managed to do at least two things- provoke your crabbit, and teach you to use it bloody wisely next time! {{{Teachings a bitch }}}

...and people wonder why I flip my shit.

Hmm...Jackson has never struck me as a massive Tolkien geek, and as I understand it much of the linguistic material etc has been published in academic journals or relatively obscure scholarly fanzines etc, so I'm wondering if he and the design teams were simply influenced by existing artwork or cultural perception of Tolkien's Elves, and took the pointy ears as 'canon' without wishing to dive any deeper and confirm it.

Afterall the 'expert' on the writing team Phillapa Boyens said in interview she hadn't read the Silmarillion since the 1980s...

Hmm, that didn't read that harsh to me malickfan, and I still agree.

The way I read this, you don't seem to berate Jackson for not looking into the hard to find details, and I too don't think Jackson was a massive Tolkien geek, nor do I regard Boyens as an expert. I didn't expect them to go digging and try and confirm the shape of Elven ears, rather I expected them to go with the "leaf shaped" ears for visual distinction in any case.

In a sense they aren't "allowed" to use HME V or PE17, although in another sense they employed a linguist who certainly had already used HME V for some Neo-elvish (Etymologies), or Elvish studies in general. I can't recall right now when PE17 was even published, thought it was certainly later than HME V anyway.

In any case I thought they looked good... the ears anyway

Why thanks for the lesson Petty! It has been quite the insight into, well, perhaps not objective filmic standards, but most certainly into the workings of your own flavour of crabbit.

An image came to my mind of a Scottish figure, flaming torch in hand, dancing around a big-bustled wicker statue as it burned. The figure then tossed together a few hayricks and lit them ablaze too, laughing at the back of his throat and growling with crabbit at the same time as the flames consumed the straw-man. 

Let us begin again at the heart of the matter, shall we?
 

Pettytyrant wrote:
Oddly enough for me the battles in these films were never that impressive beyond the technically wizardly.

I grew up watching stuff precgi- so an epic onscreen battle was literally thousands of extras- this not also gave it the epic feel, but it feels more real than the battles in PJ's because all the people really are there.

Heres a good example from the film 'Waterloo' from 1970. Its technically not as well shot, largely down to camera and optical equipment being primitive by modern standards- but epic, fuck yeah, its that all right. And in a way PJ's over the top, cartoony battles cant ever hope to match.

*a bunch of classic war-film videos*

So we agree that the battle-scenes in LotR were impressive from a technical wizardry (unless you actually meant "technically wizardly" which would have something to do with Gandalf's authenticity I suppose) standpoint: you say as much. 
You then say that the LotR film's battles are better shot than these classic films, even calling these classic's operating equipment "primitive" in comparison to the modern standards that LotR represent.

So far I see LotR winning in every category of technical filmmaking.

So how do we get to LotR's battles being cartoony? Surely if they exceed these classics on all technical points they cannot be called "cartoons".

And as for the opinion of which is more "epic"? That's a matter of preference. I for one find more enjoyment in fantasy battles than in real-life battles. Fantasy is more epic than real-life, and far less grim. It's escapism that is driven by our imaginations.
If I go see a film at the theater that broadens my ideas of what is possible cinematically, than I call that an epic film. Guess what I'd never seen on a battlefield before LotR? 
Orc armies, fighting elves, an evil sorceror and men all fighting it out in exotic locations like on the side of an active volcano in a desolate land of ash and dust. And that was just in the first 10 minutes of the film!

The visual accomplishments of Jackson and Co. were overwhelming. They may have built on what has come before, but that doesn't mean they aren't higher up in terms of epicness.

The thing with "fantasy" battles is, for me any way, is that its never really the end. People get hurt but they'll be ok in a minute. People get killed but, it never "feels" definite. I cant get into it, I just watch for surface value. I can say "oh wow, that was good" but it goes no deeper for me. Yet this.....the scene of Omaha Beach from "Saving Private Ryan".....touches me deeply. The bullets in this film arent real, but they feel they are. The men die & it feels real. I feel pity & sorrow, all sorts of emotions. My mind rambles on. The Elves looked awesome in their beautifully made armour & the weaponry is beautiful,but, I didnt get left with any lasting feelings of lose. It was but a dream...

Forest Shepherd wrote:Why thanks for the lesson Petty! It has been quite the insight into, well, perhaps not objective filmic standards, but most certainly into the workings of your own flavour of crabbit.

An image came to my mind of a Scottish figure, flaming torch in hand, dancing around a SMALL-bustled wicker statue as it burned. The figure then tossed together a few hayricks and lit them ablaze too, laughing at the back of his throat and growling with crabbit at the same time as the flames consumed the straw-man. 

Let us begin again at the heart of the matter, shall we?
 

Pettytyrant wrote:
Oddly enough for me the battles in these films were never that impressive beyond the technically wizardly.

I grew up watching stuff precgi- so an epic onscreen battle was literally thousands of extras- this not also gave it the epic feel, but it feels more real than the battles in PJ's because all the people really are there.

Heres a good example from the film 'Waterloo' from 1970. Its technically not as well shot, largely down to camera and optical equipment being primitive by modern standards- but epic, fuck yeah, its that all right. And in a way PJ's over the top, cartoony battles cant ever hope to match.

*a bunch of classic war-film videos*

So we agree that the battle-scenes in LotR were impressive from a technical wizardry (unless you actually meant "technically wizardly" which would have something to do with Gandalf's authenticity I suppose) standpoint: you say as much. 
You then say that the LotR film's battles are better shot than these classic films, even calling these classic's operating equipment "primitive" in comparison to the modern standards that LotR represent.

So far I see LotR winning in every category of technical filmmaking.

So how do we get to LotR's battles being cartoony? Surely if they exceed these classics on all technical points they cannot be called "cartoons".

And as for the opinion of which is more "epic"? That's a matter of preference. I for one find more enjoyment in fantasy battles than in real-life battles. Fantasy is more epic than real-life, and far less grim. It's escapism that is driven by our imaginations.
If I go see a film at the theater that broadens my ideas of what is possible cinematically, than I call that an epic film. Guess what I'd never seen on a battlefield before LotR? 
Orc armies, fighting elves, an evil sorceror and men all fighting it out in exotic locations like on the side of an active volcano in a desolate land of ash and dust. And that was just in the first 10 minutes of the film!

The visual accomplishments of Jackson and Co. were overwhelming. They may have built on what has come before, but that doesn't mean they aren't higher up in terms of epicness.

fixed that for you.

I think Petty has been hoisted by his own petard. just sayin.

It hardly surprises me Figg you would think so, the repose is after all up to your own standards!

'technical wizardry'

I mean the quality of the cgi and the workmanship behind the program that allowed them to have limited AI. Still not as impressive as actually getting 10,000 extras to do it, but nevertheless the work gone into is worth acknowledging- but it certainly doesn't make it better.

'classic's operating equipment "primitive" in comparison to the modern standards that LotR represent.'

By which I mean that optical effects, cameras, how what you can physically do with the movement of a camera with computer tracking is far greater than anything available to those earlier filmmakers, regardless of how great the director may have been. Pointing out a modern film looks better because the equipment is better is not any basis on which to judge the contents being shown. Again it is just acknowledging that PJ was able to do some shots which previous generations simply could not produce, not a limit of imagination but of technology. And nothing to do with the quality of the films content.

'So how do we get to LotR's battles being cartoony?'

Here will do -



Yup captures perfectly the sense of dread, peril, fear, doom of the books battle just perfectly. Not cartoony at all.

Or maybe here-



because everyone who has ever read the book has thought at this point, 'what this battle needs is an elf shooting arrows whilst surfing down a set of stairs on a shield,. That would really add to the sense of realism and ground it. And it wont be a horrible change of tone at all from the previous scene of Aragorn chopping off limbs and decapitating orcs.'

'Fantasy is more epic than real-life, and far less grim.'

The Battle of the Pelannor is most epic fantasy battle I have ever read. But the one in the book feels real and very grim indeed. But both sides deploy tactics. There are recognisable troop movements. The initial Rohirrim charge takes out the Black Serpent banner of the Haradrim, but leaves Theoden exposed to the remaining Haradrim and the returning army of the Witch-King from the City. Theoden and Witch-King falls, Theoden passes the kingship to Eomer who finds his sister and leads his cavalry on a suicide charge into the ranks of the Haradrim. Gothomog takes charge of the assault. Eomers cavalry drive huge wedges into the Haradrim ranks but eventually find themselves cut off from their own side and the city. Gothmog sends in a fresh force against them and they fight a rearguard retreat towards the port and to a hill where they prepare a last stand, at which point the Black Ships arrive with Aragorn and co. Argorn sweeps north and Eomer leads a cavalry charge down the hill from the opposite side, catching the enemy between 'hammer and anvil' and trapping them against the river. Aragorn and Eomer meet on the battlefield. Reinforcements start arriving as fresh men pour out from the city. They drive the enemy back, most of th eorcs are either slain or flee, but the Haradrim fight to the last man.Thats how they win.

PJ doesn't need to bother displaying any of this of course because he has a green bubble ghost army turn up and just kill all the bad guys. Brilliant battle that. So much better than Tokiens version PJ could have made instead.  


'he visual accomplishments of Jackson and Co. were overwhelming.'

To a point, like I said plenty technical wizardy on show, but they fail to adapt from the book Tolkiens importance in depicting things as if real. That battles cant have magical endings that cheat like ghost armies, they have to be won with tactics that would work, with movements on the field that make sense. All of this is important when adapting Tolkien because gets away with making you believe in the fantastical by first convincing you of the reality of the setting. And visually they dont even depict the battlefield correctly, the Pelannor is not a dust bowl, its fields and farmsteads.

'The bullets in this film arent real, but they feel they are. The men die & it feels real. I feel pity & sorrow, all sorts of emotions. My mind rambles on. The Elves looked awesome in their beautifully made armour & the weaponry is beautiful,but, I didnt get left with any lasting feelings of lose. It was but a dream...'- Azriel

I agree Azriel. And thats not how you feel when you read the battle scenes in the book, They feel real. Like a real historic battle unfolding before your eyes. That they dont feel like that i nthe films is a fault of adaptation.

Legolas is cool.

can we get back to screencapping now?

This I kinda liked. What was running thru Isildurs mind ?
Was his plan to rule wisely or turn to greed ?
And why did the Ring change size when It suited ?
Was he sure in his mind Sauron was dead & gone for good ?

What was running thru Isildurs mind ?

In the film at this point it seems to me to start with wonder, a touch of awe and fear. He seems to know what it is, and this would seem to be confirmed by Elrond turning up right afterwards and taking him into Mt Doom to cast it in.
This is a major departure from the book, where almost no one marked what Isildur did, and all he did was cut the Ring from the fallen Sauron and take it.
Had the elves known the Ring was still in existence, as they do in the film, they would never have used the Three afterwards. They only do so in the belief the One is gone and powerless.
Perhaps someone can help me here as I am never quite sure in the book how much the elves did know- Gandalf pieced together what happened with the Ring as far as Anduin, as did Saruman, but I think he would have been reluctant to reveal as much.
Either way Galdriels speech about how if Sauron regains the One they are laid bear to him, and she fears if it is destroyed all they built will fade away- it seems the elves were preceding from a false impression- that the One was gone.

'Was his plan to rule wisely or turn to greed ? '

This is hard to judge- we have to disregard the book here, as book Isildur would have been at least planning on ruling wisely. He was returning back north to rejoin with his family and set the Northern Kingdom in order.

Film Isildur on the otherhand is a bit of a dick and immediately covetous and greedy, as if these were the natural tendencies he had brought out by the Ring. This of course plays into PJ's invented 'all men are weak' nonsense.

'And why did the Ring change size when It suited ?'

It does this in the book, and not just when it changes owner- it seems like sometimes it tries to get away and find another Master- after all it is trying to find a way back to Sauron. Bilbo warns Frodo in his last letter that the Ring can slip loosely off a finger where once it was tight.
I actually thought at the time showing it in a very literal fashion here was quite a good idea, however it is then a bit odd it never does it again (shouldn't it do it by the film rules when Bormoir picks it up in the snow? And again at the end when Smeagol reclaims it?)

'Was he sure in his mind Sauron was dead & gone for good ?'

In film I dont know- partly because its Galadriel narrating, and we don't know from what perspective- if Galadriel in the film knew all this of the history of the Ring she would surely have acted very differently- but then wouldn't Elrond in the films have told her? And did she know he could come back if the Ring survived?

It seems to me in the book they were no connection yet known between the Ring and Saurons lifeforce (indeed that connection I dont think was fully made until after the Necromancer was unveiled and Gandalf started to wonder about Bilbo's magic Ring), or to assume the survival of the Ring would mean the survival of Sauron. Isildur took it originally simply as an 'heirloom', a trophy of war to be passed down his line.

And at the battle the Ring was not considered of consequence, presumably because it was primarily thought to have the purpose of ruling the others- men it had already succeeded with and got in the 9, it failed with the dwarves but did make them more covetous, and the elves simply hid theirs from him. So the 1 was redundant as a strategic weapon by the time of the fight in the minds of the good guys.

In the film Elronds actions seem to indicate everyone knew the Ring was evil and had to be destroyed- Isildur was just a human though, so a dick in PJ's world, and took it for his own instead, presumably knowing it was at least dangerous enough the elves wanted it destroyed. But did he know it meant Sauron was not fully gone? If so it makes him an even bigger dick than he already seems.

This I kinda liked. What was running thru Isildurs mind ?

He looks half scared half disbelieving what he holds.

Was his plan to rule wisely or turn to greed ?

From what I gather it certainly wasn't greed, the Ring had been brutally taken from its master, it seemed to have some quasi will of its own, it could have turned Isildur's mind quite quickly, it being so close to have been worn by Sauron, its power could have been acute at that point as it was fresh from Sauron's hand. It certainly had a quick effect on Isildur in the film, and he became possessive of it, but he didn't have the Hobbit resilience. As far as I know this was the only time in history that a man had owned the Ring. Smeagal was part Hobbit so it took him longer to prey, and Frodo and Bilbo took the longest time to be corrupted.

Showing isildur affected by the Ring so early on in the film is very important, and its not as Petty says to make him 'look like a dick' which is flippant and deliberately missing the point, that an audience needs to know what the power of the Ring can do. early on.

And why did the Ring change size when It suited ?

it was tricksy.

Was he sure in his mind Sauron was dead & gone for good ?

Theres no way of knowing.

that an audience needs to know what the power of the Ring can do. early on.- Figg

I disagree here. I think for the narrative it works better following the book- and the viewer should become aware of just how dangerous it is only as Frodo does- first he is told how dangerous it is by Gandalf- but then the Black Riders turn up and it just keeps getting more and more dangerous, then the Council caps the background info the viewer needs on the Ring.
PJ shoves it all in at the start- the stuff about isisldur isnt knowledge the book reader has until the Council. In Shadow of the Past its briefly recalled but Gandalf mainly tells Smeagols tale.

This is not an accident- the viewer or reader doesn't need to know about the rings history, because that spoils the reveal of its evil, which is more effective if we already know Frodo, like him and don't want harm to befall him. To then find out exactly how dangerous it is works better and has direct stakes for the main character.
But the viewer does need to know about Smeagol early on- because he was a hobbit just like Frodo, and seeing what the ring did to him is al the more powerful. It sets up the personal stakes for Frodo- that he will become just like Gollum (PJ sort of nicked this and transferred it to Aragorn, so that we see Isildur being a dick early on, and therefore Aragorn fears he too will be a dick) Frodo's horror and realisation when he makes the connection to Gollum is shared by the viewer if the reveal of the Rings evil is held till Shadows of the Past. And his decision to keep the Ring and leave for the good of the Shire all the more satisfying for the process.

One of my favourite scenes.

One of my favourite scenes.- Chris

Even the bit where the Ring falls right on his finger?!

Clumsy twit that Frodo, who in holy hell thought making Frodo a gormless twit was a good idea ? Nor is Pippin & Merry. The only one they didnt make like the Harpo Bros was SAM, but even then there was a touch of the "Laurel & Hardy's" about them.People who havent read the book will assume & forever tell that Hobbits are thick country Yokels ! So thick they dont wear shoes & have big hairy feet.

azriel wrote:Clumsy twit that Frodo, who in holy hell thought making Frodo a gormless twit was a good idea ?

Don't forget spineless

You know the Frodo thing really is a bit odd.

What do you think they were actually trying for? It cant surely have been gormless, spineless, falls over a lot. So what was it they were actually trying to do with all those changes to Frodo which make him, well a wimp who falls over in the face of danger? What was the aim?

Pettytyrant101 wrote:You know the Frodo thing really is a bit odd.

What do you think they were actually trying for? It cant surely have been gormless, spineless, falls over a lot. So what was it they were actually trying to do with all those changes to Frodo which make him, well a wimp who falls over in the face of danger? What was the aim?

It's a mystery to me too. But to all appearances, he's clumsy, callow, coward, made to look incompetent and useless at nearly every opportunity

It's the thing that irritates me most about those movies. I think if they'd gotten this part right, I might have forgiven myriad other sins of the movies. But no, they had to flub (seemingly on purpose) this basic cornerstone of the books.

You lot have obviously seen a different film to me. When did a gentle sensitive soul become spineless and gormless? Oh that's right in the 21st century where people think that you have to be macho and kick ass to be a valid male character. Whats the matter, is he too feminine for you? Is he not butch enough? I blame too much Transformer and Avenger films.