• Welcome to The Tolkien Forum! Connect with fellow Tolkien enthusiasts and join a community that is over two decades old, and still going strong. We look forward to meeting you.  Register

a humble suggestion

Ol'gaffer said:
The nazgul are riding in a charging phalanx formation, meant for hunting down their target.

And they therefore must keep pace with their slowest horse.

Stupid.
They catch up with Arwen, but never catch her in that meaning. they get alongside with her and try to force her to stop or fall.
We don’ see that after the first appearance of the Nine, save arguably in one shot where the formation of the Nazgûl take on a U-shape with the end close to Arwen’s position or partly parallel to her.

What happens then?

Another jump cut.

I felt no tension. The scenery was nice.
It's obvious that you aren't a film maker or even know of that trade.
True enough but ...
Cutting together a chase scene is the hardest thing to do, after battles that is, and this was cut very well.
I have seen it done better in other films. I realize the difficulties in dealing with a large number of animals. But it was Jackson’s decision to do a long chase scene in place of the very short chase scene in the book.
At times showing close ups of Arwen riding, at times far shots and wide shots to show the full picture and how close the riders are, this creates tension.
It didn’t for me. I saw it as arbitrary jump cutting. We see the horses forming a U around Arwen. What happens next? Another jump cut, dissolving the tension. He’s obviously cutting in time as well as space, but then what reason to show particular sequences when, effectively nothing happens, when the pursuers do not gain.

If you want to increase tension, perhaps one should do it also by what happens on screen rather than by trying to force excitment by jumping shots and camera.

But it was wonderful scenic photography.
Making the whole chase into one shot would not.
Making an action sequence into one long shot is difficult. But it can enhance tension as the audience sees that there is apparently no trickery involved. Or use many multiple shots. Jumping the camera from Arwen to her pursuers and back hides the breaks in shooting. I’ve seen enough films to know that.

Again, lining up and pacing themselves by the slowest horse is what doesn’t make sense. No-one has an answer to why anyone would use such a strategy in the circumstances. And it’s surely harder to shoot a chase scene where the riders are in formation than one where they are strung out as would happen naturally on the set.

You want tension, try this: Frodo, you idiot! Get out of there! Frodo is almost surrounded. Wonderful unexpected special effect! Nice sound!
A breath of deadly cold pierced him like a spear, as with a last spurt, like a flash of white fire, the elf-horse speeding as if on wings, passed right before the face of the foremost Rider.
That was close! Jackson is normally so ready to hype up any action and yet when Tolkien provides something like this, Jackson tones it down. But he still drags it out.
 

Well, I've had a chance to live for a while with PJ's stuff — I have (so far) seen all the movies in theaters at least three times and have seen the first two EE DVDs countless times. And while I would never call myself a purist, I am at last beginning to become annoyed with some of the gratuitous changes PJ made that I think needn't have been made. (I won't go all of into them here, as some of them have been covered at least 5 megazillion times by purists on other posts.)

I wish he hadn't taken some of the liberties he did; on the other hand, I think he did a great deal for making certain things clearer than they were in the book. There are only a few I really have a hard time with: 1. "Sam, go home." 2. Frodo attempts to drop off the ring with the nearest Nazgul in TTT. 3. Leaving the Saruman/Wormtongue final scenes out of TTT where they belonged.

I don't place blame. What PJ did was a monumental first-time feat, not only in dealing with these tales, but in moviemaking. It's my hope that any other filmmaker who wants to do a serious film version of these works will pay attention to the loudest and longest PJ complaints by Tolkien aficionados and scrupulously avoid repeating them (let alone creating new ones). Anyone who makes another film version would do well to stick much closer to the books than PJ did during his wildest unnecessary diversions.

Nevertheless, I am hugely grateful to the guy for delivering a groundbreaking cinematic masterpiece.

Lotho
 
Jallan,

after reading the quote that you posted, and watching the chase again. I still stand behind my statement. I like Jacksons chase better, infact, the only thing that could make it any better would be adding Glorfindel into it, but such as it is now, I like it a lot.
 
And, when you provide us with a set of great quotations from what Tolkien provides, you do us all a great favour.
I got more thrills out of reading your extracts of the "real" scene than from all of PJ's protracted and confusing "impression" of it.
As you say, PJ's scenery was nice, though of course it ought not to have been! The long procession of shots of horses and trees does look good, but as far as emotion or tension goes, it's a non-starter.
Think how much better the drama of all that action on Tolkien's "long straight mile" would have been.
If anyone else was thrilled as I was to read from his account, I suggest they now go to the eight pages he gave to the Battle of the Hornburg, known to PJ as of Helm's Deep. The thrill, tension, drama, excitement, you will find there make PJ's version look like something from that same B-Western.
His reluctance to use Tolkien's words is bad enough; that he throws away the chance to use this sort of thing that Tolkien left him is a tragedy for us all.
 

"To us all" aren't we being a bit melodramatic?

And just because you and Jallan think that PJ is doing so poorly and how he is so "incompetent" in your eyes, then stop watching the movies and go read the books as much as you wish and ignore the existance of the movies, but please, don't come here to tell us what is bad cinematopagraphy and who is an incompetent director when neither of you don't know the slightest thing of making a movie.
 

Everyone has the right to express their opinion on this board. In fact "opinion" is what makes up 95+% of what is posted here, how could it be otherwise?

However, instead of getting into never-ending arguments with those who express themselves as though they are somehow more of a Tolkien expert than someone else (usually because of the amount and number of times they've read something of Tolkien, or because of the number of posts made to the board, or because of the intensity of their feelings), such things can be dealt with by the use of the IGNORE button. (I daresay we are ALL "Tolkien experts" or will be, if all it takes is voluminous reading and strong opinions.)

For me, I find it useless, unpleasant and unnecessary to keep a running battle going with someone heavily invested in maintaining their position. (I found out the hard way.)

Lotho
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…