Posted on 03/14/2002 5:07:26 AM PST by HairOfTheDog
This is a continuation of the infamous thread New Zealander Builds Hobbit Hole originally posted on January 26, 2001 by John Farson, who at the time undoubtedly thought he had found a rather obscure article that would elicit a few replies and die out. Without knowing it, he became the founder of the Hobbit Hole. For reasons incomprehensible to some, the thread grew to over 4100 replies. It became the place for hobbits and friends of hobbits to chit chat and share LoTR news and views, hang out, and talk amongst ourselves in the comfort of familiar surroundings.
In keeping with the new posting guidelines, the thread idea is continuing here, as will the Green Dragon Inn, our more structured spin-off thread, as soon as we figure out how to move all the good discussion that has been had there. As for the Hobbit Hole, we will just start fresh, bringing only a few mathoms such as the picture above with us to make it feel like home, and perhaps a walk down memory lane:
Our discussion has been light:
It very well may be that a thread named "New Zealander builds Hobbit hole" will end up being the longest Tolkien thread of them all, with some of the best heartfelt content... Sorry John, but I would have rather it had been one with a more distinguished title!… post 252 - HairOfTheDog
However, I can still celebrate, with quiet dignity, the fact that what started as a laugh about some wacko in New Zealand has mutated and grown into a multifaceted discussion of the art, literature, and philosophy that is Tolkien. And now that I've managed to write the most pompous sentence of my entire life, I agree, Rosie… post 506 - JenB
Hah! I was number 1000!! (Elvish victory dance... wait, no; that would be too flitty) … post 1001 - BibChr
Real men don't have to be afraid of being flitty! Go for it. – post 1011 – HairOfTheDog
Seventeen years to research one mystical object seems a bit excessive… post 1007 - JenB
Okay...who's the wise guy who didn't renew Gandalf's research grant?… post 1024 – Overtaxed
To the very philosophical:
…Judas Iscariot obviously was a good man, or he wouldn't have been chosen to be one of the Apostles. He loved Jesus, like all of the Apostles, but he betrayed him. Yet without his betrayal, the Passion and Crucifixion would never have occurred, and mankind would not have been redeemed. So without his self-destruction infinite good would not have been accomplished. I certainly do not mean this to be irreverant but it seems to me that this describes the character of Gollum, in the scenes so movingly portrayed above… Lucius Cornelius Sulla
To fun but heartfelt debates about the integrity and worth of some of the characters…
…Anyone else notice how Boromir treats the hobbits? He's very fond of them but he seems to think of them as children - ruffling Frodo's hair, calls them all 'little ones'. He likes them, but I don't think he really respects them… post 1536 - JenB
Yes... Tolkien told us not to trust Boromir right off the bat when he began to laugh at Bilbo, until he realized that the Council obviously held this hobbit in high esteem. What a pompous dolt… post 1538 - HairOfTheDog
…I think almost every fault of his can be traced directly back to his blindness to anything spiritual or unseen. He considers the halflings as children, because that is what they look like. He considers the only hope of the ring to be in taking it and using it for a victory in the physical realm. He cannot see what the hobbits are truly made of, he cannot see the unseen hope of what the destruction of the ring might mean--the destruction of Sauron himself, and he cannot see the unseen danger that lies in the use of the ring itself… I just feel sorry for Boromir--he is like a blind but honorable man, trying to take the right path on the road but missing the right path entirely because he simply cannot see it… post 1548 - Penny1
Boromir isn't a jerk, he's a jock… post 2401 – Overtaxed
-----------------------------------------
Oh, I think by the time Frodo reaches the Cracks, he's not even himself anymore! I think he's not only on the brink of a dangerous place physically, he's on the brink of losing himself completely during the exchange with Gollum. But for some reason, the take-over isn't complete till he actually has to throw the Ring in. The person speaking to Gollum is not Frodo, but the "Wheel of Fire" that Sam sees. After the Ring is destroyed, Frodo not only comes back to himself, but comes back with the unbearable (to him) knowledge of what it's like to be completely without compassion. I think that's why it's so important to him to be compassionate in the Shire… post 2506 - 2Jedismom
…Regarding Frodo's compassion... it's a little too much at the end. Even Merry tells him that he's going to have to quit being so darn nice. But you're right. He's learned a lesson about evil that very few ever learn since it wasn't an external lesson but an internal one. (Those kinds of lessons have the greatest impact) Not only did he totally succumb to it, but he was rather ruthless to my little Smeagol… post 2516 - carton253
Well that Frodo was a big mean bully! (to Smeagol)… post 2519 – Overtaxed
So as you can see, everything JRR Tolkien (and Peter Jackson) is welcome here in our New Row, our soon-to-be familiar New Hobbit Hole…; philosophy, opinion, good talk and frequent silliness.
I'm with 2JM...looks like a carved wooden pillar...appropo for Edoras...
Here's a review:
http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1028125658
Yet Another DVD Review!
Xoanon @ 10:27 am ESTFrom: Dave
Just finished my 1st viewing of the DVD / fullscreen edition, which I got my hands on at Walgreen's in Chicago burbs today. (they don't seem to be carrying the widescreen version).
I agree with other reviews about the quality of the transfer to DVD - looks very good, rich and clear, even on a puny 27" TV with no surround sound (thus I can't really comment on the sound), with a few exceptions. There were several points where there is what I have come to think of as "DVD pause", where, during a scene change, the frame seems to freeze for about a 1/2 of a second longer than it should. Maybe this is some kind of by-product of the reel-change mark that you see in the upper right hand corner of the film which signifies a switch to another reel at the theater. The net effect is kind of annoying, and it happens several times, most notably at the end of the secret council at Rivendell, right after Elrond says "you shall be known as the Fellowship of the Ring" and Pippin says "Great! Where are we going?" ha. There is definitely noticeably missing material on the fullscreen version, such as when the dragon firework goes off, you can't see the burning tent at all.
I found the special features disc to be rather weak as well. Most of this stuff we here have seen before (but it's nice to have in 1 place), although I hadn't seen the Houghton Mifflin special and I found that very interesting, some bits of history on Prof. Tolkien and the publishing of the books, instead of the now-common "extended trailers" that those specials sort of became. I was disappointed that there was no commentary whatsoever on this version. I was expecting that. The "special features" choice on disc 1 only tells you to put in disc 2 - DAAR.
The 10 minute Two Towers preview wasn't really what I expected, but it was very good. I thought it would be a 10-minute trailer. Instead it was some very cool behind the scenes stuff with some brief (and a few new) trailer scenes sprinkled in, with PJ giving a sort of guided tour (quite cool) - introducing the new characters - some good interview bits with cast - a lot of focus on the way they did Gollum, (with Andy Serkis in motion capture suit - nice interview bit with him) but no new footage of the finished Gollum at all, and not even a peek at an Ent. The part of the preview scene with "filthy thieves - you stole my precious and we wants it!" is much lighter and easier to see than what we saw in the online trailer - you get a much better look at Gollum there.
I feel a bit like a sucker for going for the marketing ploy (suppose I will now own 3 versions of FOTR on DVD), but hey, I suppose that's the nature of the geek.
I got a freepmail this morning from a friend on the Religion threads. Seems they were having a discussion about my many screen names (I have one).
I swear on the precious (and we know what that did to poor Smeagol) that I have not posted there under any screen name since I swore of the threads on June 28.
I went back this morning and blasted them. The link is above.
God forgive me for hating those people.
I gotta figure out how to post graphics. I was kinda thinking some of g'nad's weaponry would be a nice touch.
I believe you bro.
I went back this morning and blasted them. The link is above.
Nothing wrong with setting the record straight.
God forgive me for hating those people.
That on the other hand may need some prayer on your part. Are you sure you just don't hate what they are doing instead of the people themselves?
This verse helps put things in perspective for me:
Galatians 6:
[1]Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
That really is it since I don't really "know" them.
It just floors me sometimes that I'm so "important" to them. I left once before when I changed from "Ward Smythe" to "Corin Stormhands." I was gone for two weeks and they spent a large portion of the time talking about "Ward."
In one sense I know it was because I was poking holes in their arguments and they knew that. But it really blows my mind to think that after five weeks I'd still be an issue. You know like there's not another Freeper who could disagree with them...
Thanks for your wise counsel.
I'll get everthing set up for you when I get home tonight (won't be until late, due to rehearsal), and freepmail you the details.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.