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.
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...]
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.
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?
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 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.
WFTR
Bill
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'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.
You drink it hot?
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.