You have some interesting ideas, but the assignment was very specically NOT to write a paper about the things that Jackson left out of or changed in the films!
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 AM
The scouring of the Shire seems to be a popular topic amogst all the rough drafts. Perhaps if you found more difficulties in different areas of the film making process it will lead to a stronger paper. And I would have to disagree with you when you say Sam had a pessimistic attitude in the book. Jackson did a pretty decent job in emulating his character. Although you should touch on how the events on the stairs of Cirith Ungol needed to be change to clairify Frodo and Sam’s relationship. Brian Nacov September 18, 2008, at 04:29 PM
I think that it is an excellent point to make about how the scouraging of the shire was left out of the book and the change with the fates of Saruman and Wormtounge. I also like how you are talking about the pressence of strong female characters now. Did these changes need to be in the movie? Sounds good so far just make sure your not just comparing the novel to the book. Donald Turner September 18, 2008, at 03:08 PM
I like it how you’re going to discuss the scourging of the shire scene and the fact that it isn’t in the film. This is something that has always bothered me and I plan to also discuss this in my paper. If you watch the director’s/writers cut, you will find out what they have to say about the killing of Saruman and Womrtongure (if you were planning on discussing this). Basically, since they didn’t have the scourging of the shire scene in the film (and they couldn’t show them being killed like how they were in the book), it shows how in a certain scene, Wormtongue stabs Saruman and then Legalos kills Wormtongue. I like you ideas for you paper. Sarah Chudyk?
I think it is great that you are focusing mostly on the success or failure of Jackson cutting out certain scenes-it creates a nice sense of unity throughout the paper. Just be sure to include why Jackson changed those scenes. Eligh Hanning?
Wow, you plan on making some great points!! The death of Denethor is an interesting point for I do not think it would be as affective they way it is written in the book. I can’t way to see how you develop this! :D Brittany Thrun ? September 17, 2008, at 10:35 PM
In regards to your comment about the death of Denethor, you might want to take into consideration that watching someone run aflame right off the edge of a very tall cliff is more theatrically thrilling then what Tolkien depicted in the book. So, although it didn’t quite make sense, to someone who hadn’t read the book, Denethor’s anguish is still seen and he still dies. Devon Cozad? September 17, 2008, at 10:03 AM
I like how you are considering the audience in the development of scenes and of the film as a whole. I would like to see how you elaborate on the difficulties of developing complex characters. How do you think the film would have turned out if Jackson didn’t include comedy into his screenplay? Steven Wilser? September 16, 2008, at 11:13 PM
I find your ideas on how Jackson manipulated the characters during the darker stages as comedic relief to be quite interesting. As well as analysing the complications of such a physically long movie being film on a limited time frame. You have alot of sound ideas and much to work with thus I believe you will have a very interesting final product. Sarah McNutt September 16, 2008, at 11:03 PM
Hi Kelsey! I think your point concerning Denethor’s death is important. Another point you could discuss concerning that topic is how Pippin pulled Faramir off the pyre and not Gandalf. I interpreted this as giving Pippin a heroic act since he is never shown slaying the troll. Have fun! Annika Laughlin? September 16, 2008, at 08:56 PM
I feel like the last paragraph of your outline is very good. The rest of your ideas are good, but you need to manipulate them and tell what the actual difficulties of the differences are. Showing the differences is great, but now I think you might try to tell why Jackson made it that way. He had reasons! Very good start! Keilah Bradley September 16, 2008, at 04:58 PM]]
Your paper is well written but I felt like it was more on the differences than the difficulties from “script to screen.” I agree that it was important to show Frodo’s pity for the enemy but I think when he spared Gollum it got the point across. Afterall it was gollum who led Saruman to the Shire in the book. You have some good ideas to build on though and good luck with the final draft. Carly Lopez?
Good start and good points! However I second Lauren. You should make sure the difficulties are what stands out in your paper. This isn’t a compare and contrast paper. Good luck. Jenelle Jones
You have some great ideas going, but make sure that if you are describing differences, that you back it up with difficulties that Jackson had experienced. The idea about the film needing to appeal to an audience can really be expanded and might be one of your strong points. Is there a way you could describe the difference between the audience for a novel and one for a film? Lauren Brych? September 15, 2008, at 11:43 AM
Try to include Shippey’s remarks in your paper, and I think you’re set. You chose a good main topic (that being the ending), so run with it! Good job! Joseph Bella? September 14, 2008, at 11:17 PM
Wow, you had many original ideas in what you plan to write about. I never thought about how in condensing the end, Jackson loses Frodo’s display of pity for Saruman and how entertaining the audience with comedy would be challenging near the end. I suggest that you don’t forget to pair the changes Jackson makes with the challenges that created them, which is this paper’s main focus.Emily Marvin? September 13, 2008, at 10:08 PM
Great ideas Kelsey! I think the idea about losing Frodo’s pity is great. Maybe you can expand on this by thinking about why Jackson didnt try to find another place for this in the movie. Make sure you keep in mind the topic of the essay which is the difficulties that Jackson faced in making the movie while you are talking about the changes he made. I really like your idea of the incorporation of comedy in the movie. Elizabeth Delano? September 14, 2008, at 06:19 PM
You are off to a great start. Some how you have lost track of the main focus of the paper which is the predictions Shippey makes about the third movie and how they are fulfilled or not by Jackson in the movie. Make sure to include them in your final paper. Great start. Trudy Antwi September 14, 2008, at 10:31 PM
What I am planning on focusing on in the beginning of the essay are a few of the events that Peter Jackson left out of the movie or altered from the book, and why these were wise choices (or not so wise) when taking into consideration the audience, being people watching a movie rather than reading a book. I will hopefully have time to watch the director’s version of the movie, or at least part of this to get a better idea of how Peter Jackson tackled the creation of this movie, and what issues he ran into in the specific sections of the movie which I choose to write about.
The largest change, which I found, between the book and the movie was the alteration of the ending, in which the hobbits return to the Shire and everything is the same as it always was. This I thought was a crucial point in the book. For one, this recalled when Frodo and Sam looked into Galadriel’s mirror and saw the scouring of the Shire. The fact that this entire section was omitted I at first thought of as a detriment to the movie because this event really showed that all of Middle Earth was affected deeply by the darkness, even the Shire, which was like its own little isolated world. Even so, I can see why this part would be omitted from the movie, because of time restraints and the fact that the point still got across that all was the same, after this incredible journey that the hobbits had been on. I was disappointed that the entire story of Saruman and Wormtongue were still lost, and we never get to see Frodo’s pity for Saruman and him saying that he still has hope for goodness, which I thought was an important part of the book.
A few other points which I plan to explore are the death of Denethor, and how in the movie Gandalf pushes him onto the pyre and he runs away on fire. This differs from the book in that Denethor takes a knife to Faramir, and then lays on the table and burns himself. I was wondering why this was changed, because I think that the book’s version made more sense and was still moving and dramatic. In addition to this are when Gollum throws the lembas over the mountain and frames Sam for this, Elrond coming and telling Aragorn that Arwen is dying and he will not win, the eternal optimism of Sam as opposed to his turning pessimism in the book, and the dreams sequences with Arwen seeing Aragorn and her child, the delayed reforging of the sword, and the how the portrayal of women (Arwen and Eowyn) was altered.
Some other challenges which I want to consider are the difficulties for shooting a film of this length and complexity, and how to create it so that the audience would stay engaged (perhaps some younger children who are easily bored and even more A.D.D. today than before because of the kind of shows that are on television these days- turn on any kid’s program during the day). Another would be the development of the characters and how to portray them in the movie. I think it would be difficult to create three-dimensional characters and bring them to life when there are so many important characters and they are all complex. Also, by the third movie they should still be developing and changing and more of their characters’ revealed. I also would like to discuss the incorporation of comedy in this film, which must have been a challenge because of each book becoming increasingly darker. Kelsey Till September 10, 2008, at 09:53 PM
