How The Lord of the Rings Delivers a Perfect Prologue | Video Essay
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 ก.ค. 2024
- 🔵 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗣𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝘅 𝗼𝗻 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗯𝗼𝗻𝘂𝘀 𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲: / pentexproductions 🔵
Video essays often talk about exposition and prologues like they're a bad thing. Unfortunately, they usually are.
So why does the opening of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring work so well? How does Peter Jackson deliver such a perfect prologue to the trilogy?
The answers can be found, in part, by comparing the prologue to Jackson's LOTR trilogy with the animated 1978 Lord of the Rings film, directed by Ralph Bakshi.
00:00 - Introduction
01:46 - Writing exposition
07:47 - Using film-making as a language
10:38 - Sharing information at the right time
12:05 - Conclusion
***
If you want to see more video essays about The Lord of the Rings trilogy and other movies then please subscribe and let me know you liked it!
Tweet Pentex: / pentexp
***
- Reddit thread mentioned in the video: / why_does_the_lotr_styl...
Music: www.bensound.com/royalty-free... - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
Have you seen the 1978 animation? How do you think it compares?
Yes I have. I first fell in love with the BOOK when I was 12, so in 1978. I devoured it in two weeks (and must have read it another 50 times since). Then I saw the movie, I believe it was the next year but I can't say for sure. And I hated it, so much. I felt whoever was responsible for that movie didn't understand a thing about Tolkien's work, and delivered it like a kid delivers a line of Beowulf, without understanding a word of it. Of course back then, I wouldn't have phrased it like that. I would have called "cheap". But even as a teen, I could see how bad that movie was. To this day, I say "Ralph Bakshi" with distaste.
What did you think of the Jackson adaptation?
The first time I watched the animated movies was when I was young (before I was old enough to read the books) and I thought they were good. I own all three of them and do watch them once in a great while. They may be bad in a lot of ways, but dang, the animation nailed the creepy looking characters. Lol.
Yes I did. One time and never again.
I like the 1978 version for what it is, it has a unique feel and theres a fair bit of content within it that seems to have influences Jackson's trilogy. However we should forget the 1980 Return of the King
"I guarantee that just now, you were saying the words along with Galadriel in your head." It was out loud, but still, guilty as charged
It happens to the best of us
When you are speaking all shown science out loud we are talking again. XD
bruh me too
I learnt it by heart when I was 8 😂
Peter Jackson had a valuable advantage over Ralph Bakshi: he had Ralph Bakshi's film to pick apart as an example of what doesn't work!
Yes that is very true. It was one of very few references and as fate would have it, he did incorporate some sequences into the movie. But Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, and Phillipa Boyens also spent about two-three years adapting the novel to screenplay and storyboarding the movies which absolutely helped make the movie what it is.
He had another huge advantage... possibly two: He was also a MUCH better filmmaker and had a much bigger budget.
@@jcarm185
If you're going to overshadow my comment, please make it interesting!
@@jcarm185 counterpoint, Peter Jackson filmed an entire fight scene between Aragorn and Sauron in the climax of Return of the King, it only didn't make it into the final cut because a crowd of people smarter than him persuaded him not to put it in.
There were a LOT of creative voices that kept Peter grounded during the LOTR trilogy that were not present during the Hobbit Trilogy, yes there was also massive studio interference but Peter also largely had free reign and it turned into a massive shit fest of terrible ideas.
Peter Jackson is a great film maker, but he is like George Lucas where he needs a crowd of more talented and grounded individuals to keep him grounded and reigned in so his terrible ideas never make it to screen.
True, but you gotta feel a bit bad for Bakshi
He tried to earnestly make a loyal adaptation but got screwed cause of:
A) Low budget (Mainly cause most at the time didn't think it was possible to faithfully and succesfully adapt Tolkien's legendary trilogy
B) Cause the executives came in at the last minute and decided to make the movie a "Part 1" of what should have been the complete saga. Even tho the movie had been advertised as just "Lord of the Rings"
Frodo: "I wish it need not have happened in my time..."
Gandalf: "... yup."
* _internally screaming_ *
i kinda love it in a memey way tho lol
My screaming did not stay internal. I had to pause the video.
me: * loud gasp *
originally ian mckellan was meant to read the prologue and e was a little salty when they changed it to Galadriel because he thought it made more sense if it was gandalf speaking. but then he heard what cate did with it and realized how great the choice was
I think he reads it for the LOTR Games, i've definitely heard him do this somewhere officially
It's better than The Hobbit.👿
@@TheOrderOfDanos
Yes, he's the narrator in the movie-based games.
It also made sense for Galadriel to be the narrator, to show and foreshadow her power
@@laura-bianca3130 I thought Galadriel was an appropriate choice because A. She's a ring-bearer herself and B. Because she had witnessed Sauron's rise firsthand and how it affected the world.
“I wish it need not have happened in my time.”
*waits for the greatest speech ever*
“So do I.”
This. This fecking moment brings me almost to tears every time I watch Fellowship. And I feel the same way about Gandalf's death speech in Return.
No way. Last March of the Ents and Forth Eorlingas from Helms Deep are the best ones.
Théoden: "So much death. What can men do against such reckless hate?"
Aragorn: "Ride out with me."
Aragorn: "Ride out and meet them."
Théoden: "For death and glory?"
Aragorn: "For Rohan. For your people."
Gimli: "The sun is rising."
Gandalf (voiceover): "Look to my coming at first light on the fifth day. At dawn, look to the East."
Théoden: "Yes. Yes! The horn of Helm Hammerhand shall sound in the deep, one last time."
Gimli: "Yes!"
Théoden: "Let this be the hour when we draw swords together."
Théoden: "Fell deeds awake. Now for wrath. Now for ruin. And the red dawn!"
Théoden: " Forth Eorlingas! "
@@SpecialEDy I’m a sucker for Sam’s speech at the end of Two Towers
“In the end, it’s only a passing thing, this shadow.”
That killed me 😅
It is one of my favorite speeches in the trilogy
And knowing that Gandalf is pretty much an immortal demigod makes his words even more meaningful. "his time" is basically eternity.
The prologue in Fellowship concisely and efficiently condenses so much Tolkien lore in a way that is easy to understand and immediately important in an unforgettable way, it's pretty much the gold standard of how to do exposition and narration in a movie.
I was stunned at how good a job they did at setting the stage, giving some great 'deep Tolkien' backstory, and transporting the viewer deep into the texture of the world. I remember the stunned thrill of joy I felt sitting there in the theatre watching how good a start the movie got off to. Trying to get 'normal' non-book readers to buy into that world would be tough, but I can't imagine doing a better job then they did in FOTR.
The fact that the fractured, re-organised clips of the Fellowship prologue in your video still actively gave me goosebumps in spite of sharing the screen with a cartoon penguin says a lot in and of itself.
100% just hearing the few clips made me want to watch the movies again and think this IS such a good intro. Pulls you into the world and magic and tension immediately
It is crazy how powerful that effects you after all these years...I have gone several years between viewings and it still gives me goosebumps everytime...matter of fact it had the same effect on me as I watched this vid as it did on you.
Having Galadriel narrate the opening was a great choice, as she’s a character that inhabits the world of the film, but not a character in the overall story, and being an immortal elf, she would know an extensive amount about the past for over two millennia. Having any other character narrate would’ve revealed too much too soon and/or created plot holes, and having an unknown narrator would skew believability in the overall narrative.
BITD, as soon as the screen went black and Galadriel started whispering, I had chills.
Also, Cate Blanchett has a truly epic voice.
it was a tragically beautiful sort of narration. because she was the only one who knew how much the world had changed.
@@coagulatedsalts4711 very true. She was one of the oldest beings in all of Middle Earth, having arrived there together with the Noldor iirc. That makes her older than Gandalf (the wizard, not the being), Saruman, Elrond, maybe even Celeborn, I don’t know. Perhaps older than Treebeard, but I don’t think so. Definitely the only one left (in the movies at least) who was around since the Noldor chased Morgoth and his kin to Middle Earth; others may be older, but the happenings of the outside world mostly passed them by.
It was her memory that built the prologue. The memories of the other characters coming to light later in the story when they can tell it works so much better as 'theatre'.
To be honest, Aragorn's explanation of the ringwraiths in the inn is more a scary as hell ghost story than exposition ! I saw it 3 times in theaters, and every time I was a kid again at a camp-out listening to one of the adults tell a scary story that had us looking over our shoulders into the dark woods outside the firelight. Interspacing it with the visual shots made it next level frightening just short of a jump-scare !
I can't live life normally if I don't watch the LOTR Trilogy every year...
Christopher Lee told Ian McKellan he used to reread LOTR every year. I mean, I read it 3 times when I was in my teens and it was a wonderful experience each time, but I have no desire to go back and reread it decades later. It might not live up to the idea I have of it in my mind. Besides, I read it at the perfect age. I don't think LOTR can be appreciated more than it can by an introverted 15 year old boy who lives in books.
That makes two of us, Brother.
2nd,3rd and 4th January are booked for LOTR trilogy every year
Same. And read the books.
@@JeffRebornNow
I learned that about Christopher Lee while watching the bonus features on the extended DVDs. I then read The Hobbit + LotR annually for nearly 2 decades, and I added The Silmarillion after a few years.
The balrog scene with Ian McKellen will forever be one of the best moments in cinema history.
Yep, that long fall in the underground lake was epic. :)
... Oh... you meant the fight at the top of the mountain where Gandalf use lightning to kill the balrog.
@@ghyslainabel Mainly the bridge scene where he says "you shall not pass". But the rest of it is amazing too
@@emilycanfield2634 I know what you mean, I was trolling. I apologize.
@@ghyslainabel LOL Its ok, I feel dumb for not realizing :^)
The first words of the prologue feels like the first pages of a book, there's no preparation or explanation, you deep dive into the world of the story and leave the real world behind.
Let’s not forget how amazing the soundtrack is
Absolutely - I even mention it in the second half of the video.
Let's not forget to finish watching the video before commenting.
@@jp3813 shut up before I drop kick you into Mount Doom
I would go so far as to say the following:
Not only does Peter Jackson's LotR have the greatest soundtrack of all time, but it also IS the greatest movie trilogy of all time and quite possibly the best movie adaptations of a book ever.
I totally agree. The LOTR trilogy is literal movie perfection.
"the best movie adaptations of a book ever" Writing something like that is beyong disgusting. Those movies are ridiculous campy garbage.
@@tsogobauggi8721 Explain why.
@@alexl6644 I can see what he means if you look at just the theatrical releases and specifically the changes to legolas and gimli and their friendship as a microcosm.
@@tsogobauggi8721 I'll just assume you're a troll with nothing better to do since you make an objectively wrong statement about the movies without any argument to back it up. Either defend your position or go away.
U cannot pass, asked Gandalf calmly
Hahaha :)
Ha ha Dumbledore reference
he's just so not bothered lmao
Alas, ear wax.
The line that made me hit the like button: "Yeah, im really fun at parties"
Me, too!
The Jackson LOTR films will stand the test of time as a truly epic project equal to Tolkien's book and a worthy interpretation of his work that remains faithful whilst still adapting it for the screen.
Equal? That's a stretch. The movies put me to sleep, the book never has.
As if the Tom Bombadill section of the book is a masterclass of pacing...
There’s plenty of pros and cons with both, and yet they’re both two fine pieces of art. Why can’t people just enjoy both pieces of media without making it a contest?
@@Kevster921 you mean you seriously think it was a good idea to remove Tom Bombadil, Old Man Willow, and the Barrow downs from the movie? The old forest sections talking about the massive primordial forest that used to cover middle earth helped the world building for Fangorn, and so did Old Man Willow with him seeming being a Huorn or an ent that went Treelike. Also, by not explaining the origins of Merry's sword, it totally weakens the glory of seeing that ancient sword forged for the war in the north against the Witch King eventually be used to help slay the Witch King, since now it's just some sword with no history to it.
@@vibecheck3572 yes, it was a really good idea to remove Tom Bombadil... how the hell are you supposed to explain in a visual format what Tom Bombadil even is? Dumping that much mystical weirdness on an audience that early in the story would have completely lost a good chunk of the audience and spoiled the pacing considerably. Sacrificing an 'oh neat' moment in the third movie (none of what was lost is hugely plot relevant), is not enough to justify leaving it in just to be faithful to the source material
@@vibecheck3572 my guy. It’s great that you love the books so much. Literally watch the video you commented on and try to understand why certain things should be left out from a MOVIE.
I've seen this movie like a thousand times and I still get goosebumps just by this prolonged alone.
It helps having Cate Blanchett as the narrator.
I always felt that a majority of prologues or expositional introductions are just afterthoughts cobbled together after the fact because the creators didn't really know what to do. Jacksons prologue was clearly well thought out, discussed, edited and rewritten to convey a purposeful tone. I would say unless you have a really inspired vision for conveying exposition then you should avoid attempting to do it in a prologue dump and instead incorporate it within the rest of the film.
Fun fact: in the Lord of the rings alone, there are over 100 identified themes in the score. With the Hobbit, it goes up to a total of over 160 musical themes.
I'll tell you now that's a heck lot of work.
Wagner: Hold my Leitmotiefs
Goes on to write and compose a 2.5 hour prologue. ;-)
@@poorwotan XD
Hahaha, from geek to geek: in that moment where you showed that bit of prologue where they said that Sauron "learned the craft of ring-making" I frowned and started muttering to myself that he already knew how to do that and actually taught the Elves, right before you pointed that out. Guess I'm that "fun at parties" person too, unless it's a Tolkien Society meeting, of course - we'd welcome you with open arms!
I was looking away from my screen for a moment, but when I heard that I looked back with a frown!! 😂😂😂 Glad we had about the same reaction hahaha
I can't help but get goosebumps when that violin kicks in. Every single time
Dark Souls does this amazingly well too. Nothing worse then a game that forces you to sit through hours of boring exposition, arguably it’s more painful in a game than a movie.
Definetely, games introduction is make or break to most people
oh God. this gives me PTSD when i think about RDR2.
@@VFFP54 Arthur... ARTHUR! We need to talk...
And I'm alt-f4
The prologue is amazing ! As someone who did read the Silmarillion, i know how much story there is behind these movies. I think they nailed it. Its not too long or too short. It sets up these movies perfectly.
Another ideal comparison is between two specific sequences in Steven Spielberg's Jaws & Amistad. The former has a speech by Robert Shaw about the USS Indianapolis w/ no flashback, while the latter shows how Djimon Honsou's character ended up on the titular ship w/ barely any English translation. One uses words, the other uses visuals, both powerful storytelling.
One might say that a good movie prologue should follow the childhood playground adage, "Say it, don't spray it."
Very good analysis. Well done. I’ve always been fascinated at how well otherwise boring exposition was done at the start of LOTR. I’ve yet to see another movie do so much so gracefully.
a good prologue sets the stage, in that regard LOTR is.... perfect
This just makes me wanna watch all 3 movies right now hahaha
A cute penguin delivering amazing analysis on films? I look forward to more!
So glad you liked it - more videos coming soon!
I actually remember my parents talking about what a disappointment the first LOTR movie was, and how they were concerned that no movie can truly adapt Tolkien's work in a "true way" after they've seen the first movie. But they said that the moment they sat down in the theater and heard the music from the opening and the elvish language, they fell in love with the movie.
I believed like your parents did. I was prepared to be gutted and heartbroken. I went back and saw the first movie at least 12 times at the cinema. It was just perfect.
How dare you assume I was saying the words of the prologue in my head... I said them out loud.
On the music: I HIGHLY recommend checking out the three videos done by Listening In about Howard Shore's music in The Lord of the Rings. He did an absolutely AMAZING job explaining the magic behind the music. Between the passion in the music and the words in the video I was a little misty-eyed.
I feel like Bakshi read it once to prepare to make the film... Whereas Jackson read it several times because he loved it, understood it even. So for his prologue he could riff on Tolkien, evoking home without getting to literal from the book. He conjures the feel and conveys what the audience needs to know....
The prologue is one of the many things they straight up nailed in this film.
So many things coming together at the right time to adapt this trilogy. I think even the universe wanted to get it right.
Peter Jackson was meant to direct the Lord of the Rings, and that is an encouraging thought
I remember watching the prologue the very first time when I was 11. Most fantasy prologues jump around the backstory too quickly, so they just become typical and too forgettable. But the subtle simplicity of the opening title revealing itself and the mysterious tone of the choice of words spoken from Galdriel and a truly other worldy almost exotic musical score invokes this unnerving feeling of immersion. All of those careful details combined in the prologue really made you see a world that is old, ancient, horrifically dangerous, and brought on this historical epic prestige like it actually happened many, many years ago.
"I guarantee that just now you were saying the words along with Galadriel in your head"
NO, sir! I was actually speaking the elvish version of the words from the script!
GOTCHA!
Oh I agree...Galadriel delivers the perfect prologue. One of many things I love about this film!
One of the most important differences distinguishing a movie from a written novel can be reduced to one question: what can be shown on screen and what has to be told? In a novel the author is forced to be build up his world and his characters by describing them because the reader can not see them. In a movie these descriptions should better be left off because the audience can see the characters and the world. That gives you the opportunity to provide the necessary information while keeping the prologue relatively short. If you want to take more time for the prologue, you will use it for building up the atmosphere, tension or giving a first insight on one character. But you will never use it to bore the audience by giving useless background information only need hours later in the same movie or in one of the following movies.
Lol "don't @ me" "I'm really fun at parties" 🤣🤣🤣
Correction: I was saying the words of Galadriel ALOUD.
"I guarantee that just now, you were saying the words along with Galadriel in your head."
Ha! joke's on you i was saying them out loud
I love that you acknowledge the different line reading between the Gandalfs
There’s nothing wrong with the Bakshi film. Just a different style.
Yes Jackson knocks it out of the park.
Exposition goes back to that old saying in Filmmaking. “Show, do not tell”. Great Video essay.
I literally had the first line of the film scrawled on the outside of my bedroom door as a kid, in Sindarin and in English, from when I was 10 to when I was 18, when I left home.
The words never lost their meaning.
Kinda cringe
@@amfortas Nah, not at all.
@@amfortas Wow you're so mature and totally not autistic.
The 1978 movie is what made me race through the novels. I still have a soft spot and love for this movie, and a sadness that there never was the second half to match this animation.
The score that plays when frodo is standing on the lake shore at the end, ring in his outstretched palm, with gandalfs voice is the most beautiful, most moving thing I have ever heard. And seen. Let's face it. These do films were lightning in a bottle
I believe we wont see anything this grand and perfect again for another 20 years
That's the Anduin River, not a lake 🤓
@@Richard_Nickerson cool. Thanks for the correction. 👍
@@mkhachfe
No problem
About the music....! Howard Shore decides to layer his score for the set of films full of leitmotif and all sorts of thematic, and aural foreshadowing, To, in effect, make an operatic-style CYCLE of it, worthy of Wagner.
It is probably one of the most consequential decisions ever made about how to structure an orchestral soundtrack. His decision to go "all in" and give the music the same epic nature that's being displayed by the visuals, elevates BOTH to another level entirely.
The more I learn about this score, the more I love it. Thanks for these insights - fascinating to learn more about Shore's process.
YES, the music tells the story by itself! It is a work of genius, a master-piece of sound track, the most phenomenal marriage of music and story!!!
Bakshi's a kids film?
*Boromir's ghost enters the chat*
I still must agree with Tolkien that Sir Christopher Lee would've been the best Gandalf, however I cannot imagine a better saruman either.
Ian is better suited to play Gandalf in my head xD I cant imagine Christopher Lee playing a non-villain haha
@@Alejojojo6 Agreed. Christopher Lee makes a very good "arrogant downfall" former good guy, he's just so proudly sinister.
Tolkien died in 1973, so how the hell could he have known that Christopher Lee would be the best choice? Sounds more likely that he merely liked Lee, and paid him a compliment.
@@borismuller86 Boris, Lee had met Tolkien and told him he was a fan, and apparently Tolkien was aware of Lee's acting work and suggested to him that he should play the wizard Gandalf if his books were ever adapted to the screen.
@@JeffRebornNow yes I’m aware of that, but it’s still a weird leap from that meeting several decades earlier to the early 2000s and to somehow claim that it’s a valid casting decision. Tolkien could have just been trying to be polite.
This is and has been my favorite movie since I saw it in the theater at 10 years old. I've always loved the intro and talked about how perfect it is.
Read the books as a kid and man when this prologue started...greatest movie experience for me by a long mile. Nothing even close. I was in the sweet spot for age too, early 20s and had that kid energy. It confirmed that wow they nailed this thing and you had 3 movies of this.
Great video, thank you for sharing!
I was thinking a lot about this topic lately after I overheard a statement that "prologues just don't work these days and should be avoiddd when writing novels or scripts" - and I enjoyed how your comparison shows it's definitely not about whether to write a prologue or not, but how to do it well
I found your channel from your reddit post in r/movies today! Love your channel and I'm excited to see what you're going to make next.
Thank you for this video! I’ve been looking for exemplars to teach essay writing introductions to my students!
thank you for an awesome video and explanation. completely agree that the intro was glorious
I could watch your essays about LOTR all day long, subscribed!
Thanks, glad you like them!
Terrific video. Loved the analysis.
Thanks for the feedback, glad you liked it. More videos to come!
Well, an excellent comparison of what makes exposition work and what not. Well done! You really are fun at parties :D
I don't think I can ever really explain how the prologue from The Lord of the Rings makes me feel...
Probably the most iconic prologue ever!
The voice of Cate Blanchett, the music, the monologue…
💯👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
A very wonderful film essay; thank you!
I recommend watching In Deep Geek's videoessay "Did Frodo Curse Gollum to fall into the the Cracks of Doom?". It adds a whole new layer to what was going on and why did the book end the way it did. I still think though, that this ending worked much better for the movies, as even in the book it is in the details that most people miss.
I'll check it out
🙏🏼✨great stuff, Thankyou
Great channel and videos! You deserve more views and subscribers
Great video, mate!
I know I am late to the party, but the scene from the animated Lord of the Rings that you showed where Gandalf just picks the One Ring up from the fireplace with his fingers...
I literally panicked!
Well said, little penguin! Your LotR book/film analyses are beautifully rendered! Count me among your new subscribers! :D
Masterpiece. Still the greatest films I’ve ever seen.
Still true.
This video was great, subbed
Also that penguin is dope
Thanks!
This is also a good lesson for the Amazon LOTR show - the problem with that trailer isn't any particular change they made to Tolkien's writing, the problem is that it feels too clean and generic and shallow. You can change anything as long as you make it work.
As someone new to the series it was a perfect way to introduce the world. The Bakshi version (and the Hobbit intro) just don’t set the world up in the same way
The advantage film as a medium for storytelling has over literature is visual storytelling. It doesn't need to include as much in the description if what you're seeing on screen is conveying a lot of the information without words, because that tends to be delivered subliminally.
You know, i agree with you. @3:00 I think GRRM's breadth is unbeatable and why he may never finish, but tolkein's goes so much deeper. So much further back. But each is great in its own way
I like that Bakshi kept Aragorn plain looking as per the book and kept the line "you trust me because I look fouler but feel fairer than you expected", Jackson didn't trust the audience to go for a less handsome actor than Viggo.
The music is so nostalgic for me.
Heavens! The beginning of Bakshi's film sounds exactly like the beginning of Jeff Wayne's War of The Worlds.
But has Peter Jackson *"SARUMAN OF MANYCOLLAHS"* ?
It would have been cool to see!
Really great video!
Thanks, glad you liked it!
Hiya, Pentax Penguin! I really am enjoying your video essays. You've actually inspired me to re-visit some work I started a few years back. I abandoned it due to, well, pretty severe depression. I'd love nothing more than for your great-grandchildren to, one day, create fan media essays about the work I've done. I think something like that is perhaps one of the greatest honors any writer could ever hope for. Thank you!!
That's fantastic to hear, good on you. What I love about making these videos is that it's my main creative outlet, so I'm glad to hear you've picked up an old project. Good luck with it!
I love the usage of the Bahnschrift font
So, um... I think I love your channel on a spiritual level. 😅 So glad I subbed.
Thanks heaps, welcome along!
Instant Immersion...
I agree, Howard Shore finally topped Williams; his three film score is an unequalled masterpiece in the history of cinema.
Holy crap. "Early years of the second age" - I recognise that. I've never seen the 1978 version. Nightwish sampled this in Elvenpath. That's blown my mind.
Great video! The only critique I have is that I didn't get to listen to Howard Shore's masterpiece while you talked about how good it was!
The issue with Jackson's prologue is, though, that it suggests that the rings were given to Elves, Dwarves, Men before the One Ring was made and that their wearers were deceived then. But it was indeed Sauron, who after his purpose was uncovered gave rings to Dwarves and Men while the Elves hid their three all along.
Very well-thought out analysis. I agree with all the praise you've lavished on the Fellowship film as a true classic.
I have to say, I'm not sure it's fair to dump on the Bakshi film as a comparison - even with the same source material, they're very different creations. Maybe a look at an 'epic' film made at the same time, or after Jackson's LotR could be instructive?
I would note that 'The Hobbit', the actual 317-page book, has no prologue, no lengthy exposition (except for the marriage of Bungo Baggins to Belladonna Took and the provenance of Bag End), and famously opens with the sentence, "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit." The real exposition happens much later after dinner, when Thorin takes 3 pages to talk about the history of the Lonely Mountain and the Dragon Smaug. Tolkien likewise split most of the exposition between Gandalf's lecture in the 2nd chapter ("The Shadow Of The Past") and Elrond's long speech in the 14th ("The Council Of Elrond"). The purpose of Galadriel's prologue is to set up a dark backstory for Bilbo's party (and the actual prologue from the book, "Concerning Hobbits"). Thus, when Bilbo pulls his little stunt, we know that it is more than a magic trick: sinister forces are at work, even upon our innocent hobbits.
Sauron was once called "Mairon" and before being corrupted by Melkor he was a apprentice of Aule the Valar of Smithing and the Crafts. Sauron was a master at smithing before elves and men ever awoke in Arda, effectively since the dawn of time
Jackson's trilogy, in my opinion, quite effectively nailed every single aspect of cinematography.
As a writer, often the challenge isn't making words but deleting them.
Bakshi's Prologue is better than you're saying. Actually, on an emotional level, it catches me more than Jackson's. Maybe because there is more left to fantasy. I watched it as a child, without seeing the whole movie and knowing the books. It completely sucked me in. I never forgot it, and until I read the books first about 10 or more years later, it established a curiosity about LOTR that never left me. Especially what it said about Gollum's character.
I also agree. For me the Bakshi prologue is better. It is silhouetted. I loved the narration and the action. It was mysterious enough to draw me in. Jackson goes big on things. Bakshi, kept it subtle. He didn't go over the top with the 'Dark Lord'. You never see Sauron in the film and he is only represented as a silhouette. To me, it was like an underlying evil that didn't seem too dangerous but was. That was what it was like in the book as well. Something that was only on the edge of sight.
The Bakshi, soundtrack was good too. Not so much the music but the quieter parts of the film. Bakshi used natural sounds like running water, birds, crickets under the dialogue. Peter Jackson used Howard Shores music to convey what the emotional mood should be. Which works in the Peter Jackson film but would not work in the Bakshi film. I think the Bakshi film is much better for it's quietness and use of natural sounds.
I remember trying to watch the 1978 LOTR when I was younger and couldn't get through it. Since PJ's LOTRs I have read many of the books beyond the core ones and collect what I can. I recently watched an interview with Brian Sibley about the BBC LOTR Radio drama and how much PJ used it as the storyline for his treatment. I absolutely love both the books and the films; I love The Hobbit for what it is and realize how much the pre-production woes hurt those films. I suppose I should give the animated films another viewing through a new and older perspective.
And yes, Howard Shore is a... wizard of a composer. If you get the chance get the Complete Recordings for the LOTRs, there are magnificent.
Someday, when the Prelude and Prologue to the Stormlight Archive make their way to a screen, I really hope they're handled with the same love as Peter Jackson's trilogy
The Fellowship of the Ring is my favorite of the three LOTR films. I think maybe the exposition might be the reason. I had not considered it to be the reason until now.