You have made some extremely interesting points! I think some of your questions will be cleared up when you have watched the “Director’s and Writers’” cut of the film.
There is a good very short documentary on the duel between Sauron and Aragorn that was filmed but finally cut in the “extras” for ROTK in the Extended Edition. You might find it helpful when writing your final draft.
Read the general comments on the rough drafts that I posted on the “(Almost) Daily Bulletin” page this morning. Lydia Fish September 22, 2008, at 09:51 AMLydia Fish
You can find out exactly why Saruman meets his demise differently in the film than in the book in the commentary at the begining of the film. Once you know the reason, you won’t blame Jackson for editing it. And furthermore, I didn’t even think about the events at the black gate. I’m interested how you would elaborate on that scene. Personally, I thought it was pretty similar to the book besides the fact that it needed to show both the Hobbits and the fighting army at the same time. Brian Nacov September 18, 2008, at 04:24 PM
I like the points that you are talking about and I think that you are making a good point about why the book is not easily made into a movie. I think it will work out well. Donald Turner September 18, 2008, at 02:58 PM
I really like your idea with discussing the fact that the scourging of the Shire isn’t in the film. It’s something that has always bothered me. I also like it how you directly refer to the Shippey article and what it states (which I haven’t done and I think I need to in order to follow what we are exactly supposed to be writing about in this paper). I think that this is a really good outline. Sarah Chudyk?
A very strong essay, you definitely have a good focus and several topics you can elaborate on. A lot of your ideas deal with certain scenes being changed, or altered due to them being anti-climactic. I suggest mentioning how Jackson made many of his changes in order to propel the story line and keep momentum. Eligh Hanning?
You chose some good points to discuss in your paper, i really like the fact that you talk about the feelings and thoughs of the viewers. Can’t wait to see your final draft.Jenelle Jones
It’s interesting to see that you want to explore why some things in the film worked well. You might want to focus more on the difficulties presented to Peter Jackson while trying to produce/make the Return of the King. Steven Wilser? September 16, 2008, at 11:04 PM
I enjoyed how you incorporated what we watched in class into your paper, especially how Tolkien did not do any thing to make the book easier to translate into film (even though he entertained the idea). If he had known his books would be as successful as they were, do you think he would have made changes in order to assist their movement to film? You haven’t strayed a bit from what is asked of us in the assignment and your points are concise about what you would like to explore. Great job! Sarah McNutt September 16, 2008, at 10:52 PM
Your point concerning changing the placement of the confrontation between Saruman and Gandalf is very important. It was either in the documentaries or the directors and writers cut where Jackson mentioned he needed to change the timeline so other events didn’t distract the audience from the battle, which was used as the climax. I don’t remember all the particulars, but hopefully this helps! Annika Laughlin? September 16, 2008, at 08:51 PM
I very much agree with the ending of your paper. I think you should stick to that idea because it justifies the ending of the story. I personally plan on writing similarly about the ending of the film. Your introduction is very well thought out and really does make me interested in reading the rest of your paper. Very nice! Keilah Bradley September 16, 2008, at 04:54 PM]]
Good Introduction! I know this is only a rough draft, but after reading a brief introduction I looked forward to reading the rest. Your view on the role the audience played was very interesting and I loved how you incorporated Sam’s final line into the mix. I never thought of that and I totally agree. Great start and I look forward to reading your final paper. Carly Lopez?
You brought up just enough points, and explained each just enough, for us to be able to to recognize the overall theme of your paper. You mentioned in your introduction that producing and directing a movie involves keeping the emotions and reactions of the audience in mind. You mention the effects on the audience within your last three paragraphs. Is there any way you can incorporate this running theme into your paragraph on Isengard? Lauren Brych? September 15, 2008, at 11:36 AM
In your introduction, you may not want to mention that Jackson said that in the documentaries, only because it makes me question which one. Saying that you intend to explore certain points should be implied. It seems like we’re following you around a grand mystery, and are barred in a way from participating in the essay. It just reads more like a novel than an essay that way, you know? Referring back to Shippey is a nice touch. I like how you do that in an almost casual manner. Overall, the tone is light-hearted and not deathly serious, something I haven’t seen yet. I think that’s a good way to approach anything Tolkien. Devon Cozad? September 15, 2008, at 09:55 AM
You made an excellent point about the ending!! The lines would have been out of place had the shire been scourged, particularly if the viewer had not read the books. I am interested in reading about the facilitating Jackson did in order to end the movies the way he did. Keep it up, I can’t wait to read the finished product! Brittany Thrun ? September 14, 2008, at 07:16 PM
I would suggest that when you investigate the points you mentioned you wanted to, that you incorporate the fact that these changes occurred due to a specific challenge Jackson encountered while making the films. I liked that you are going to write about the challenge of ending the films; this is a major point that needs addressing, because so many things happen at the end to form the ultimate climax. Another thing that you need to think about is how Tolkien’s narrative and world view were preserved/unpreserved in the movies.Emily Marvin? September 13, 2008, at 09:59 PM
I really liked how you focused on the issue of the audience of the movies as compared to the books, as this is a very important aspect when making a film. I was also intrigued by your mention of the Black Rider and the battle at the Black Gate, as I hadn’t deeply considered these points before. I think that you should definitely focus on the audience in the last paragraph as well, so that it frames your essay. Good job! Kelsey Till September 12, 2008, at 09:20 PM
I think the point you brought up about the audience having a indirect part in the film making was great! I also like the point you brought up about if the audience would except the ending if the shire had changed. I think you should expand on these points more. It seems as if “the audience” is playing a nice part in your essay Elizabeth Delano? September 13, 2008, at 09:54 PM
It is interesting how you introduce your essay, but all the same job well done. You did a great jobe of telling your audience what points you intend to develop. When talking about the ending of the movie, take each point as you have presented in the draft and try to expalin each in a paragraph.
Trudy Antwi September 14, 2008, at 10:23 PM
Peter Jackson commented in one of the documentaries that he thought the Lord of the Rings Trilogy would make a magnificent series of movies. But that he never imagined being responsible for producing these films, as they were such an undertaking, that he probably considered them a producer’s nightmare. That’s an understandable feeling, considering that J.R.R. Tolkien didn’t exactly write Return of the King, specifically, in a way that made it easy to be turned into a film…though he entertained the idea. I want to explore this facet: why it was difficult to transfer the Return of the King to film. Most of the reason, I think has to do with the audience being able to follow the story. And above all – Jackson wanted the audience to get the essence of the story, since that’s all Tolkien wanted people to get out of his books.
One of the largest changes that Jackson made to the Return of the King, in my opinion, was to include the meeting of Gandalf and Saruman at Isengard in the movie. Originally, in the books, this was part of the Two Towers. I’m going to look in to why exactly Jackson might have done this. It breaks up the story line if you were to follow the books alone – but obviously, it worked very well in the films, and I intend to explore why.
Another rather large change is the scouring of the Shire. In the movies; we (the viewer) are led to assume that the Shire was untouched by evil during the entire story. We have a subtle foreshadowing in the movies, though, that presents the opposite: The Black Rider. Sauron never before concerned himself with the Shire, until Gollum revealed that the ring of power was in the “SHIRE” with a “BAGGINS”. If one was paying close attention – he/she would recognize that the Black Rider signifies the beginning of a dark time for the Hobbits of the Shire. But Jackson does not follow through with this. Indeed, he completely leaves out the ‘Ruffians’, and the effects they had on the Shire. I want to look more closely at why. I believe it has everything to do with the audience.
On the other hand, there were some things that Jackson was able to do better on film that Tolkien did in the books. The brief battle in front of the Black Gate stands out to me, specifically. It was incredibly short in page-length, and once Pippin blacked out…that was it. I honestly felt that Jackson did an exemplary job in telling that portion of the story on film. Mostly, because he incorporated Frodo’s tale inside Mount Doom side-by-side with the battle just beyond the gate. If he had told it the way Tolkien did, with Pippin blacking out, and showed Frodo, Sam, and Gollum inside it mountain at a separate time…I think the audience could have lost interest. I want to elaborate on this idea, and include some thoughts about the Battle on Pelennor fields, as well.
Finally, I want to end talking about the “Big Question”, as Shippey puts it, regarding the third book. How to end it? Even Jackson makes mention of how important the ending is to the story. He said that all the other books “lead up to this point.” And he’s right! There are more than three endings all wrapped into one in the books. Sort of like those songs that start up again just as it gets quiet and you begin to applaud. It’s both irritating, and rewarding. I mean, I’ve just read 1000 pages of story, will it never end? On the other hand, this is such a great story; I want an ending that does it justice. And Tolkien delivered just that, so I guess I’ll deal with a little irritation. Shippey said that it was unlikely Jackson would use the book’s multi-layered ending. I’m happy to say that he was wrong. That he underestimated Jackson’s ability to render such an ending on screen in a successful way. In fact, I want to end on this note, because I believe some of the manipulating Jackson did in the body of the story was done in order to facilitate this ending. For instance…would an audience accept Sam saying “…I’m Home” if he didn’t return to the home he remembered? I want to look at each ending and maybe figure out where in the films Jackson changed things to support it.
I look forward to any and all comments/critiques. Thanks!!
Joseph Bella? September 10, 2008, at 11:23 PM
