The New Hobbit Hole

I LOVE a good lefse...as I've said before...

It's hard to come by here in Oklahoma though. Steve tried to make it and it turned out thicker than a tortilla [insert wrinkled-up nose expression here...]

OK - Rather than give you the whole thing back at once, lets handle them a few at a time!

Top 30 Things I didn't like about FOTR

1. While I realized that it is hard for a director to find actors who look exactly the way a character from a book should look, I was particularly disappointed in Aragorn...

I love Viggo Mortenson's Aragorn.... wouldn't change a thing! - But lets move on... This one is preferences...

2. In the book, Aragorn did not question his own place as the king ready to claim the throne. The self-doubt and angst portrayed in the movie were a perversion of his character.

Without quoting now unless you really disagree, I think Aragorn expresses all kinds of self-doubt in the book... but lets continue...

3. In the book, Elrond did not question Aragorn's place or fitness to be king because Aragorn had lived in the North for so long.

A minor quibble... Elrond's point in the movie with his "men are weak" lines was to show a bit of the history that men had failed before where the ring was concerned... This is the kind of thing that just doesn't change the story, and the story would not be improved by all that history... It doesn't change the story. IMHO

4. The ring did not cause anyone to hear little voices.

How else are you going to portray the draw and temptation of the ring with picture and sound? This is a difference in the way things can be explained in print versus film.

5. Gandalf was not afraid to touch the ring when Bilbo gave it up in Bag End. When Bilbo dropped it, Gandalf quickly picked it up, put it in the envelope, and put it on the mantel. He was afraid of temptation, but he wasn't silly about it.

Without going into a lot of time in exposition, it could not be explained to an audience why Gandalf would leave the ring with a little hobbit instead of taking care of it himself. A strong reaction to it has more impact than telling him he simply can't do it.

Am too tired now to respond in much detail (or coherence) to the 30.

Enjoyed your website, Bill and agree mostly with what you say about Reagan. I am only now realizing what we owe him.

But here is why I differ with you on FOTR: Most importantly, to me, all the characters (including esp. Aragorn) are perfectly and beautifully cast and acted. The locations and scenery fit the story perfectly.

I know that many details have been changed or rearranged, but, somehow, this movie brings dramatically and convincingly to life a book that has been my close friend for 34 years.

I guess I could wish that no details had been changed, but in spite of the fact that they have, the film still increases my enjoyment and appreciation for the book and the genius of JRRT.

Good night all, can't stay up any longer.

What's a lefse?

You know... I sat and wrote out point by point answers to several more of your points... and the further I went, the more I didn't want to do that.

Details were changed, yes. but the meaning and feeling in FOTR has nothing to do with when who said what to who and when, but rather the strengths and character of the members of the fellowship and the events that change all of them as the story develops.

How many of the details you disagree with are parts of the book that were descriptive narratives that had to be converted from written word to pictures and dialogue in a way that had the same impact? - unless you think the movie could be six hours long and mostly narrated. For instance... How does one show on film the internal struggles and fears that led Frodo to leave the company without adding some dialogue and exchanges between the characters at the end?

Over the last few months we have discussed every single detail you brought up at length, not as a laundry list of things we hate, but discussions of the changes and how well each one either worked or didn't work for each of us. There are parts I still choose as good times to get up and go to the kitchen, and parts I have come to love more and more as I grow to love the overall wonder of the story as played on film.

I guess I am depressed by your long list of quibbles, few of which I think are important to the story. OK WFTR... It is OK for you to not love the film. But with quibbles such as yours, can you say you would have loved any film adapted from this book? Must you so covet a story that no other fan (PJ) can tell his highlights his way?

PS... They had elven cloaks with leaf clasps after Lothlorien, you just didn't notice. The actual gift-giving sequence was filmed and cut out - but will be in the extended version.

Without quoting now unless you really disagree, I think Aragorn expresses all kinds of self-doubt in the book... but lets continue...

I think he expresses self-doubt about individual decisions, but he never doubts himself or his place as the rightful king. At Minas Tirith, he refuses to claim kingship until the enemy is defeated, but that is a different point. The Aragorn that I see in the movie seems to be full of doubt about himself. I didn't see that Aragorn in the book.

A minor quibble... Elrond's point in the movie with his "men are weak" lines was to show a bit of the history that men had failed before where the ring was concerned...

I didn't think it was a general "men are weak" comment. The place that I'm thinking about was the comment he made just before the start of the council meeting. In that scene, he makes a comment that I see as a very personal attack against Aragorn. While it might have been somewhat appropriate when directed against the movie version of Aragorn, it was not appropriate for the real Aragorn. It's also a couple of seconds of dialogue that I think could have been better spent on other points.

How else are you going to portray the draw and temptation of the ring with picture and sound?

I'm not sure how I would do it. I might fade to a vision of some kind. I might just do the lingering camera shot that they do but leave it at that. It's a smaller point, but it bothered me.

Without going into a lot of time in exposition, it could not be explained to an audience why Gandalf would leave the ring with a little hobbit instead of taking care of it himself. A strong reaction to it has more impact than telling him he simply can't do it.

This is another small point that just bothered me. In the book, he grabbed the ring quickly and stuck it in the envelope. I think that this quick quick action followed by swatting the envelope onto the mantel and stepping away would communicate the strong emotion just as well. I think he just seemed ridiculous sitting there on a stool with the ring lying on the floor. As I think of other stuff that had to be deleted, I thought this was a waste of time.

I think a lot of the points on the list ignore the need for dramatic compression, and to avoid a totally unmanageable number of characters in a drama.

I can see where a few of these mistakes resulted from trying to compress the book into a movie time frame. However, most of them would not have taken longer to do correctly. For instance, sending Arwen after Frodo saves no time over sending the sons of Elrond. Making a big argument in the council does nothing to save time. The debate about Moria could have been redone so that Gandalf was not acting to save himself and would not have taken any more time.

I agree that they couldn't have developed all of the book's characters in the time available for a movie. In hindsight, I would even have recommended cutting much of what they did with Saruman. I think that time could be better spent.

I do think you are experiencing much the same shock that all of us felt to some degree after we saw it for the first time and noticed every last detail that was not verbatim. We were so nervous that it would not be right enough...

Watching it again, when I did not have the expectation that it would be verbatim, I was able to enjoy it for what it was. If you can't do that, than worry no more about it!

Than=then

good night! - I am too tired to make sense!

I'm glad that you enjoyed my website. I appreciate hearing that. I'll look forward to specific comments about my list of 30. As a movie-making accomplishment, I can see why Jackson would be proud of what he's done. I can see how JRRT fans would enjoy the fact that technology has reached the point that someone could make a movie that captures so many scenes from the books. However, I just think he missed many of the characters as I've known them for 20+ years. His Aragorn is not the man that I've wished I could emulate. His Galadriel is not the woman that I've found so admirable.

WFTR
Bill

His Aragorn is not the man that I've wished I could emulate. His Galadriel is not the woman that I've found so admirable.

Remember, you have only seen 1/3 of the story on film. Part of the difference might be that your impression of Aragorn from the books is based on the complete story, while in the film, you have basically only seem Strider the Ranger. As for Galadriel, I think part of the problem is that the Lothlorien scenes were severely cut, by order of the producers. As I understand it, when the Director's cut DVD comes out in November, her character will be more fully delineated. Beyond that, I second Hair's remarks (including the lateness of the hour).

I guess I am depressed by your long list of quibbles, few of which I think are important to the story. OK WFTR... It is OK for you to not love the film. But with quibbles such as yours, can you say you would have loved any film adapted from this book? Must you so covet a story that no other fan (PJ) can tell his highlights his way?

I'm sorry to have depressed you with my comments. That wasn't my intention. I'm also sorry that I missed all of the previous discussions. I joined a few of them just before the movie appeared. At that time, we just didn't know how these things would play out. I've moved twice since that time and am in a new job, so my time for chasing this particular issue has been nonexistent. I wanted to see this film on the big screen, but work and life have prevented me.

To cut to the overall question that you asked, I think that the characters have been changed in a way that upsets the story too much for me. More than anything else, that's what bothers me. I think the characters in the movie are 90's and 00's kind of people that Hollywood presents to us as heroes today. The characters of the book are the better and more traditional characters. I think we as a society need to return to the characters of yesteryear instead of those of the 90's. I had hoped that the movie would do this. I was very disappointed that it didn't.

Gandalf might look right and have the right mannerisms, but in the book he didn't hesitate to advocate the trip through Moria when he thought that it was best for the company as a whole. Aragorn was afraid for Gandalf's safety and wanted to avoid Moria for that reason. Gandalf seemed to have some idea that there might be a danger, but he didn't allow that danger to influence the direction that he thought the company should take. To me, that is a major character indication, and the Gandalf of the book had the more virtuous character.

With Aragorn, the sense of angst and self-doubt about being the king is something that I associate more with a modern character than I do with a traditional character. The most confidence he shows is when he throws Frodo around the Prancing Pony. To me, this just makes him appear to be a bully. The real Aragorn was a gentleman and respected Frodo's right to make a decision about whether to allow Aragorn to lead him from Bree. Again, to me this is Aragorn seen through the lens of the Clinton generation. This is not the Aragorn that I saw as a hero worthy of emulating.

I'm thoroughly sick of feminism and much of what it has meant in America. The LOTR books have only one strong female action character, and that's Eowyn. She doesn't come into play until the second book, and even then she primarily does her duty in leading the people to safety rather than going to war. It appears that they changed the Arwen character simply to appeal to feminism. I see no reason to try to make this appeal and have no patience for it.

The change in Galadriel was less an issue of virtue than of taste. If that were the only problem that I had with the movie, I wouldn't have mentioned it except in passing. However, she wasn't the character that I've always liked.

The Council of Elrond issues just seemed beneath the dignity of the characters as I have always seen them. I'm not against all of the low entertainment that modern society offers, but yes, I expected more from an adaptation of LOTR.

I guess that's what bothers me. The book presented characters of tremendous virtue. Frodo tried to go into exile alone to spare his friends and his homeland. The movie does an okay job on that point. In the book, Merry and Pippin plot to follow Frodo because of their friendship and a desire to help him. In the movie, they are just childish pranksters who get involved by accident. I've talked about Aragorn and Gandalf at length. The movie's introduction to the others at the council does not paint the picture of dignified, virtuous heroes that I wanted to see. I didn't see this point as clearly until we started discussing it, but that's what bothers me. I'm sorry that it upsets you so much.

I don't drink tea but that's just because I don't like hot drinks.

You drink it hot?

Well, while I'm here, I think it's my turn, don't you?

Sneak.

Mine.