The Moth at Orthanc

[joxy]

Here's a small question, about something small.
Some of you seem to have an insight into those corners of PJ's mind that conceive big, and to me very strange, ideas like changing Glorfindel into Arwen, and making orcs emerge fully-grown from mud; you have explanations for them.
To you I ask: What do you think was the inspiration for the moth?
To the rest I ask: Did the moth's little legs make you giggle?

 

[Anamatar IV]

well I just thought it was a good way to have gandalf call the windlord.

 

[Darth Saruman]

For the audience to comprehend why a giant eagle was there to save Gandalf's ass in the nick of time, PJ had to come up with a mechanism that would clearly reveal how Gandalf got the message to it.

The moth is as good a way to do it as any. It is a tiny, inconspicuous animal. Maybe Saruman's guards would be searching for messenger birds to come to Gandalf's aid, but they weren't counting on something that small breaching their prison and coming to help him.

A moth can fly, but it's obviously not a bird and that adds a little variety to the story, because the eagle, of course, is a bird.

Also there is symbolism. Maybe I'm reaching, but Moths are drawn to the light and Gandalf is a force of "light" against Saruman and Sauron's "dark evil".

 

[LadyGaladriel]

I thought it was a clever way of saving time and also what language was it he spoke to it in?

 

[Talimon]

Here's a small question, about something small.
Some of you seem to have an insight into those corners of PJ's mind that conceive big, and to me very strange, ideas like changing Glorfindel into Arwen, and making orcs emerge fully-grown from mud; you have explanations for them.

I don't claim to speak for PJ, and indeed his reasons for doing certain things may be completely different from what I percieve them to be. Without trying to put too much energy into explanation, I just feel as if I 'get' the movie. With the exception of perhaps 1 or 2 shots and lines, to me the movie just feels 'right'. Usually my problem is trying to put that feeling into words. For example, I still have no way of really explaining why Merry and Pippin fit, but they do. Or Arwen, for that matter. If we get into logic and so on then yes, I probably have the weaker argument, but from a purely cinematic standpoint it just feels right to me. Seeing the sales that FotR has garnered I gather others feel the same way.

Also there is symbolism. Maybe I'm reaching, but Moths are drawn to the light and Gandalf is a force of "light" against Saruman and Sauron's "dark evil".

LOL! I noticed that as well. That's actually not reaching at all, in my opinion. To me that stuck out immediately. When I saw it, my first thought was, "Why a moth, out of all things? Why not a bird, or a butterfly?"

If I remember correctly (which I probably don't) the exact details of Gandalf's escape aren't explained too well, beyond the fact that he was rescued by Gwahir the eagle, which was by some means sent by the Wizard Radgahst (whom Gandalf met earlier). This leaves some room for interpretation, and having a moth, out of all things, seemed very appropriate to me. On the surface it's not a beautiful creature, but by nature it is a true one. That contrasts well with Saruman, who is supposedly grand and white, but in reality cruel and greedy. Again, seemed to fit, and that's my best attempt at explaining why.

 

[Goldberry]

Radagast was able to talk to animals, I think. Perhaps, since Radagast was not included in the movie, PJ wanted Gandalf to possess the ability to speak to animals/insects/birds.

 

[joxy]

Originally posted by Anamatar IV
well I just thought it was a good way to have gandalf call the windlord.

So the idea is that G can talk to a moth, and the moth can talk to eagles. Have I got that right, and if I have isnt it pushing the imagination a bit far?!
Like I said, I sometimes find PJ's imagination difficult to fathom!

 

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
....from a purely cinematic standpoint it just feels right to me. Seeing the sales that FotR has garnered I gather others feel the same way....
my first thought was, "Why a moth, out of all things? Why not a bird, or a butterfly?"

It feels quite close to right, to me too; I'd just have liked it to be a bit closer still, and it so easily could have been.
The sales don't really say anything- Like most people I would have gone anyway, and who's to say there wouldn't have been even MORE sales and attendances if the reputation was that it was closer to the book?
I suppose it had to be a moth; it looks like night-time to me, and there's not much else flying then- though come to think of it a bat might have been better- it stretches the imagination less that a bat can talk to eagles than that a moth can!

 

[Ariana Undomiel]

Perhaps it was Radagast the Brown changed into a moth. I thought it was a fascinating idea. Imagination can be so cleverly portrayed on the screen.

~Ariana

 

[Talimon]

Originally posted by joxy

The sales don't really say anything- Like most people I would have gone anyway, and who's to say there wouldn't have been even MORE sales and attendances if the reputation was that it was closer to the book?

We certainly cannot say what would have happened with a truer movie. It would certainly depend on the quality of that movie, in the end.

Also, while many people saw the movie regardless and perhaps didn't enjoy it, you have to note that FotR made an extraordinary amount of money based on multiple viewings. If you compare it's sales figures side by side with just about ANY recent movie (with the sad exception of Titanic), you'll see that it has the longest staying power. If I remember correctly it was making on it's 20'th week what Star Wars was making on it's 10'th. To me that is more then just hype.

 

[DGoeij]

IMHO, it should have been a swallow. A European one of course.

Personally, I think shaving off five minutes from the 'cave troll incident', could have left enough time for ole Radagast to turn up. Or maybe not. A hardly explained new Wizard wandering in and out of the story is rather useless too. In the book there's room enough to explain his appearance, on the big screen it's much harder, I can imagine.
Since birds at least do play some part in Tolkien's stories, I would have preferred a bird instead of an insect. Maybe some guy from the special effects workshop had been working on a bug for some time and presented it to PJ on the right time.

 

[joxy]

Originally posted by DGoeij
I would have preferred a bird instead of an insect.
Maybe some guy from the special effects workshop had been working on a bug for some time and presented it to PJ on the right time.

Quite, so why not just let the eagle do the job by itself? Presumably we're meant to think the moth found its way up there by accident, which seems terribly unlikely- whereas an eagle could easily have done so, as they fly at much greater heights than any moth.
And yes, I strongly suspect that sfx workshop of having what they thought was a good moth, and wanting something to do with it! The sad thing about that is that it is such a poor moth- when its legs are wriggling on G's hand it looks like some sort of mini-monster!

 

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
We certainly cannot say what would have happened with a truer movie....you have to note that FotR made an extraordinary amount of money based on multiple viewings....To me that is more than just hype.

That's my point-it could have done better, it could have done worse, so the viewing figures are no evidence in the case for the film being 100%, or 90%, or any other figure, true enough to the book.
The viewing figures certainly are a lot more than just hype, and I've said all along that it deserves them, it's a great film- where we differ is only in whether it could have been even greater- quite easily.

 

[Talimon]

where we differ is only in whether it could have been even greater- quite easily.

I think you are using "greater" and "truer" synonomously, but they are completely different. I firmly believe, based on the dozens upon dozens of reviews I've read and collected, that had the movie stuck any closer to the book in terms of details it would have alienated people on the other side of the scale. I also firmly believe that what makes this movie good is NOT Tolkiens direct influence, but rather the film-makers talent in capturing it. You seem to give Tolkien immense credit, which for the book he no doubt deserves. But when it comes to the visual feeling, the music, the casting, the charachters, it all needs extraordinary talent to realize it. I get the impression that perhaps the movie struck on certain levels so close to your vision of the book that you take those aspects for granted. But you need to take a step back to truly see what the movies goal was. PJ is too much of a perfectionist for there to be "flukes". Everything is where he wanted it to be. Knowing that, I think the more informed viewer would try and understand why he did what he did, rather then immediately criticizing it for being a deviation from the book. As I've stated before, it would be very easy for a a scriptwriter to simply edit out portions of the book and keep what he liked. PJ has chosen not only to be the editor but to serve the role of the creator as well. The reasons for this in particular, and what it accomplishes, is of interest to me. I think it's slightly dull to just point fingers all day long.

Finally, to respond to the quote, until I see a truer fantasy movie made, and until I see that movie accomplish as much FotR has accomplished, I maintain that PJ's movie is the best fantasy movie ever made. To say it could have "easily" been much better is to say that you have some higher standard to compare it to and judge it by. I'd be very interested to hear you name other movies that have attempted to do what FotR has, and accomplished as much. I am led to believe that what you are really comparing it to is the book, and it's quality. But, as has been said from the very first day of this films production, books and movies are two different mediums.

 

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
I think you are using "greater" and "truer" synonomously, but they are completely different.
I firmly believe, based on the dozens upon dozens of reviews I've read and collected, that had the movie stuck any closer to the book in terms of details it would have alienated people on the other side of the scale....
PJ is too much of a perfectionist for there to be "flukes". Everything is where he wanted it to be. Knowing that, I think the more informed viewer would try and understand why he did what he did, rather then immediately criticizing it for being a deviation from the book.
I maintain that PJ's movie is the best fantasy movie ever made.
To say it could have "easily" been much better is to say that you have some higher standard to compare it to and judge it by.

There was a lot to answer there. I've picked out just these points:
1: They CAN be different, but here I believe that, by coincidence or whatever, they would have become synonymous.
2: I don't see how reviewers, any more than any other species, can know what viewers WOULD have thought, and I don't think a GOOD reviewer would try to make that estimate- I haven't seen any review that tries. I see no reason at all why omitting any of the invented scenes would have alienated anyone, and that's the kind of sticking closer" that I would have liked to see.
3: I and others are saying that, given that everything is the way he wanted it, we've tried but we CAN'T see into his mind about those few really odd moments that stop the film being nearer that 100% of perfection. What corners of his imagination dreamed up the broken carrot, fireworks in tent, moth in Orthanc, orc born from mud, skeleton down well?
4: I haven't seen many fantasy films, but FOTR IS by far the best.
5: It isn't to say that at all. All I do say is that it would have been easy to leave out the sillier invented scenes and words, and that would have made it better.

 

[Talimon]

Originally posted by joxy

1: They CAN be different, but here I believe that, by coincidence or whatever, they would have become synonymous.

Then let me point you to Bakshi's tale, which many consider to be truer. Or any number of other adaptations, for that matter. I'm not saying it would necessarily be worse in our eyes, but you have to take into account that PJ didn't make this movie for the fans and fans alone. Should he have? That's another issue entirely.

Originally posted by joxy

2: I don't see how reviewers, any more than any other species, can know what viewers WOULD have thought, and I don't think a GOOD reviewer would try to make that estimate- I haven't seen any review that tries. I see no reason at all why omitting any of the invented scenes would have alienated anyone, and that's the kind of sticking closer" that I would have liked to see.

Non of the reviews I've read single-handedly said that the movie would have been worse were it more detailed, plot wise. What I meant was that I read many reviews saying that the only fault with the movie was that it got too bogged down in plot, was too slavish and stuck too closely to the books. That single-handedly goes against what Tolkien purists have been saying, which is why I am led to believe that PJ would have dissapointed one crowd or the other had he strayed too far in either direction. I've also heard many reviewers particularly note and praise the aspects of the movie that I've heard purists criticize: Merry and Pippin, Arwen, Saruman etc. This proves that PJ didn't just make these changes out of laziness or lack of respect. Many people enjoyed the movie because of Merry and Pippin's silliness. Many people thought Arwen opposing the riders was one of the best scenes in the movie. When you talk about a movie from a cinematic perspective, there are certain rules regarding plot. FotR breaks so many of these. The fact that the movie essentially doesn't have an ending is, in my opinion, proof enough that Jackson respects Tolkiens work. You have to keep it in perspective: Does he love and worship Tolkien to the point that he's blinded by anything else? No. But does he admire his work and understand it? Yes. When PJ says he's staying true to the book, I think many purists take that extremely literally. They take thier fully knowledge of the book, indeed every line, charachter nuiasance, and scene, and match PJ's movie against that. You have to realize that the leap from page to film is a very drastic one.

Originally posted by joxy

4: I haven't seen many fantasy films, but FOTR IS by far the best.

You haven't seen many because there haven't been many. And those that have been made are generally B-movie material. FotR rises above that. That's why I compare it to Star Wars. It does for Fantasy what Star Wars did for Science Fiction.