LOTR - Fellowship of the Ring - Screencap Thingie

1.  I didn't think about how things were done until they were explained in the appendices.  I was impressed that they did such a good job, and finding out how did not destroy my appreciation.  I do have to say the post that Frodo is holding onto doesn't scale quite right. (you need the shot of both posts to see this).  I should add that my second cousin was largely responsible for working out the math of the scaling. I didn't even know the guy existed until I saw a permuted version of my own name in the credits and asked about it.

2. I'm pro-prologue.  I think the transition was nice, and would not have been as effective without the prologue.

3. At this point in the film Frodo and Gandalf seem about perfect, after you get over the shock of a boy Frodo.  They went with Elijah Wood despite the age difference because he so perfectly encapsulates 'hobbit'.

Leave the explosion for some fan-mashup.  It would be pretty funny to have the explosion then cut immediately to the closing credits.

1. Apart from when Frodo and Gandalf hug, this is the first example in FotR of a hobbit and a human-sized figure on-screen at the same time. How many viewings did it take you to begin to wonder how this effect was accomplished?

The first time I saw the film the scale of Frodo and Gandalf didn't even register in my brain. Which is a good thing, I didn't notice it because it was perfectly believable and looked real. I didn't notice special effects. Which in my mind makes it 100% successful.
In total contrast in The Hobbit film Thorin and Gandalf in the prancing pony looked very fake and it took me out of the moment, not that I was ever in the moment, but it jarred from the get-go.

2. After the intense battle sequences of the prologue, this introduction to the Shire is peaceful and relaxing. If the prologue was cut and these scenes between Gandalf and Frodo opened the film, how do you think this would effect the cinematic arc of the film?

I liked the prologue a lot, it was suitable awesome, it got my pulses going, and the contrast in colour and tone was visually stunning. It makes you realize that Hobbiton is a small and safe land far away from epic battles and majestic Elves, but that all that kind of thing is out there in the background. I suppose the prologue builds the world in a short space of time, without it we wouldn't understand the history involved.

3. It can be argued that in the first film, Gandalf and Frodo are the main protagonists. Aragorn muddles this in a vexing manner, but tell me: what are your impressions of these two characters at this point in the film?

I thought that Gandalf looked exactly as I imagined him, perfect casting. I thought Frodo had a beautiful ethereal little face.

Bonus Question! jocolor
What if Gandalf's smoking pipe had somehow tumbled into the back of the cart? Would the resulting explosion and dematerialization of our two protagonists make for a more exciting film?

no

Forest Shepherd wrote:

1. Apart from when Frodo and Gandalf hug, this is the first example in FotR of a hobbit and a human-sized figure on-screen at the same time. How many viewings did it take you to begin to wonder how this effect was accomplished?

I assumed it was forced perspective from the start. Now that I look at it, the perspective does seem rather forced. Frodo looks too small. The hobbits, in general, look too small juxtaposed with other characters and their proportions look wrong (albeit by necessity).

2. After the intense battle sequences of the prologue, this introduction to the Shire is peaceful and relaxing. If the prologue was cut and these scenes between Gandalf and Frodo opened the film, how do you think this would effect the cinematic arc of the film?

Don't think it would have made a difference. The intro is there to quickly invest the audience and dump some exposition but it doesn't really affect the story much.

3. It can be argued that in the first film, Gandalf and Frodo are the main protagonists. Aragorn muddles this in a vexing manner, but tell me: what are your impressions of these two characters at this point in the film?

Gandalf is okay. Frodo is already annoying.

Bonus Question!  
What if Gandalf's smoking pipe had somehow tumbled into the back of the cart? Would the resulting explosion and dematerialization of our two protagonists make for a more exciting film?

Maybe. Might also have been a different film with Frodo dead and all. Gandalf would survive, I'd guess.

The size difference looked out of whack to me. When Gandy hugs Frodo & we only see the back of Frodo, I thought then that the sizing was a bit off. I thought then & still do now that Elijah, played his part too naively & without enough Oomph. He looked far too young.
If the prologue was not included ? Would we have had lashings of exposition ? probably, & thats something I dont like in films. Im not dumb, I like working things out & I like seeing things unfold naturally.
At this point of the film ? I thought Frodo wasnt much of anything & that Gandy was the main lead & would take us into something more serious.
Exploding a cart ? Now that really would have tipped the films into sheer stupidity. Peejers needs no more help there !

I think Petty's crabbit has soaked through the pages of this thread a little too much.

All my questions seem to be provoking subtle criticisms! Perhaps the next screencap should be on a more positive note!

1. Apart from when Frodo and Gandalf hug, this is the first example in FotR of a hobbit and a human-sized figure on-screen at the same time. How many viewings did it take you to begin to wonder how this effect was accomplished?

I have the sort of mind that was wondering from the get go- but I didn't guess half the tricks used, including the cutaway for the cart- but I thought at the time, and still do that they are excellent examples of the scaling tricks.
What I do find interesting about PJ's techniques is he sells it all here at the start- the height thing- afterwards he is quite sloppy in a few places with it because the audience has already bought it and is seeing them 'smaller'-they are doing the work for PJ, so he can get away by RotK with Boyd just kneeling down at the balcony when talking to Gandalf, despite his head proportions ect being the same as Gandalfs because the audience has just accepted it already long ago.
But here we get this scene, then we get the Bag End run around between Bilbo and Gandalf which cements the deal with the handing over of props across scales. Look at the famous walking over the mountaintop scene- all Pj has to do there is pan the camera -low for the hobbits and up for tall folk, and the audience fills in the blank and buys it- no scaling, no tricks- if we had not already bought the idea we would see here they are about human height.



2. After the intense battle sequences of the prologue, this introduction to the Shire is peaceful and relaxing. If the prologue was cut and these scenes between Gandalf and Frodo opened the film, how do you think this would effect the cinematic arc of the film?

MM depends what you mean here- the information given in the prologue would need be given elsewhere- this can be done as in the book, in the shadows of the past and Council of Elrond scenes.
However I feel that the Concerning Hobbits intro is the best choice. It starts the viewer off as the reader does, already in the environment of the Shire. Darkness should come later, after you've gotten attached to the light.

3. It can be argued that in the first film, Gandalf and Frodo are the main protagonists. Aragorn muddles this in a vexing manner, but tell me: what are your impressions of these two characters at this point in the film?

I thought in terms of visual appearance McKellan was pretty much perfect, look and voice for the role. Elijah was way too naive looking.
However having said that I did think the scene immediately preceding this one, in which we are first introduced to Frodo reading beneath a tree was a very effective use of the visual medium, to convey some important things about Frodo- its an image that provokes the sense he is thoughtful, he is literate, he chooses to read for his own pleasure, yet he seems alone and unlike the rest of the hobbits so far seen. I thought it was an effective way to adapt to cinema several aspects of his character in a single introductory shot, its such a shame they could not have stayed on this path.

My problem with both is character- Frodo is so unlike the book version as to be a reinvention, a - what if Frodo had gone off on his mission in his tweens not 50?
And McKellan Gandalfs is way too twinkly eyed and smiley- he lets off fireworks for the entertainment of hobbit children! Book Gandalf puts Frodo on guard to stop hobbit children nicking them, and warns Frodo 'and that includes you'- wheres the crabbit Ian?! You make Gandalf too friendly you lose that sense that sometimes the world is just so bloody stupid his frustration with it boils over. And you lose an element of his mystery. And several funny crabbit exclamations such as when he threatens to blow the door of Bag End down the tunnel if Frodo doesn't answer his bell.

Bonus Question- 'What if Gandalf's smoking pipe had somehow tumbled into the back of the cart? Would the resulting explosion and dematerialization of our two protagonists make for a more exciting film?'


Well it would have saved me a lot of crabbit expenditure at what was to come.

Forest Shepherd wrote:1. Apart from when Frodo and Gandalf hug, this is the first example in FotR of a hobbit and a human-sized figure on-screen at the same time. How many viewings did it take you to begin to wonder how this effect was accomplished?

It's been so long since I first watched the films and the Appendices that I don't recall very clearly, but I don't think that I was really wondering about special effects while watching the films initially. My interest in how films are made started largely as a result of watching the Appendices.

2. After the intense battle sequences of the prologue, this introduction to the Shire is peaceful and relaxing. If the prologue was cut and these scenes between Gandalf and Frodo opened the film, how do you think this would effect the cinematic arc of the film?

I think there was something to be said for using the prologue to orient people, and I think the initial burst of action helped more people sit through the slowish start in the Shire. I think it's worth noting though that this sequence (Gandalf and Frodo riding through the Shire) is considerably different between the theatrical and extended versions, with quite a bit of re-written dialogue. It's not bad in either version, but I think the addition of "Concerning Hobbits" is a great move, and helps establish the Shire and the context in which Frodo makes his later decisions. When you stop to think about it though, it's kind of a weird move. I think most people skip the Prologue when they read LOTR, being that it isn't a narrative and is only slightly related to the actual story, so having it show up in a film adaptation is pretty unexpected. But I'm very glad it was put in the EE.

3. It can be argued that in the first film, Gandalf and Frodo are the main protagonists. Aragorn muddles this in a vexing manner, but tell me: what are your impressions of these two characters at this point in the film?

Interesting thought here. I'm not sure I would describe Gandalf as a protagonist, though we do certainly get a number of scenes from his POV, particularly the ones in Isengard. I know PJ claims that the TE was very Frodo-centric, while the EE gives more attention to the characters around him, but it's been so long since I've seen the TE I can't say how accurate this is. Aragorn isn't as prominent as he is in the later two films though, I suppose.

I think most people skip the Prologue when they read LOTR,

Actually, the concerning Hobbits chapter is one of my favorites, and I would never skip it on a re-reading. I think most people would read it if it was their first time, but I may be wrong.

I mean, most people don't read the Appendices, either.

{{{Or talk about the books on forums for years after they finish them. }}}

True, true. They just want to get to the 'good stuff'. I've know several who couldn't get through Fellowship of the Ring because the hobbit chapters were a bit too twee for their tastes.

I have the sort of mind that was wondering from the get go- but I didn't guess half the tricks used, including the cutaway for the cart- but I thought at the time, and still do that they are excellent examples of the scaling tricks.
What I do find interesting about PJ's techniques is he sells it all here at the start- the height thing- afterwards he is quite sloppy in a few places with it because the audience has already bought it and is seeing them 'smaller'-they are doing the work for PJ, so he can get away by RotK with Boyd just kneeling down at the balcony when talking to Gandalf, despite his head proportions ect being the same as Gandalfs because the audience has just accepted it already long ago. Petty

I agree with you. The only time I really noticed the scale thing was was in TT when Pippin is talking to Aragorn on top a wooden fort thing, Pippin is obviously kneeling down because his head is the same size as Aragorn's. I did notice it at the time. I think the Gandalf and Merry scene in ROTK was much better done. But in both cases the effect is saved from being a taken out of the moment thing by the voices of Merry and Pippin, which are light and suitably Hobbity sounding. In contrast Martin Freeman has a deep and 'manly' in the sense of being a man rather than a Hobbit. His voice is too 'big' cant really describe it properly, but it makes the scale thing off when he is acting with supposedly larger characters.