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.
Rivendell, where the she-elves are manly and the he-elves...well, let's not go there...But we can go to 18,000...or should we?
My son was still 12 when we saw it the first time. He wanted the "Big Gulp" size. By the time we went to the theater to see it a third time he said, "Um, can I just have some M&Ms?"
Perhaps we need g'nad in on this discussion.
. 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.
The Ring was in Bilbo's pocket, in an envelope, not just loose. Gandalf touched only the envelope, just as in the movie.
Aragorn did not force himself on Frodo at the inn. Instead, Aragorn had to prove himself as someone who could be trusted.
True, but Aragorn does just show up, uninvited, in the hobbits' room. Frodo is quite uncomfortable with him there for a bit.
Arwen did not meet Aragorn and the hobbits on the road west of Rivendell. No matter how much political correctness screams for a female character riding a horse and appearing to take part in an action scene, putting her in this position was wrong. Political correctness should have been spanked and told to go do the laundry. Aragorn was met by the sons of Elrond.
First part yes, that was silly, second part no. Aragorn was met by Glorfindel, not one of Elrond's sons. Arwen showing up was quite silly, but it does make sense in reducing the number of small characters floating around.
The Leavetaking was cut way, way down - supposedly it will be restored in the extended version. In any case, since the fellowship starts wearing elf-cloaks and leaf-brooches, we can assume it happened off screen.
No one talked to Frodo about Gollum until the river trip, and that conversation was with Aragorn and not Gandalf.
The very powerful and moving "pity and destiny and fate" speech was moved to Moria and also served to show us that Gollum was after them. Personally I think it came out pretty well. You wouldn't want those great lines just removed, right? Jackson did a lot of "cut and paste" with dialogue, beefing up scenes that on film seem skimpy, and cutting down on those that were long. It's just the translation from one medium to another requires some changes. For istance the words that Boromir, in the movie, speaks on Caradhras, about the ring being so small a thing, are taken from the end, where he tries to take the Ring.
I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the movie, and I hope you don't think this is an attack on you, but I do disagree with some of your list.
Waving to my hobbit friends - off to work in a few, but this is a good thing to do before!
Ummm....the traipsing around in the wilderness with the Black Riders part was out of character.
Well the weeds I whacked last weekend are dead, the garden has dried out for the most part (very depressing) and it doesn't take that long to cut okra so I'm just hanging out watching The Movie again.
You're welcome!
I still believe that Arwen was placed in that position to pander to feminism
I disagree with you here... I think she was put in that position to introduce the love interest. But anyway... my point was, no movie can be 100% faithful to the book it was based on. They all have to take some liberties, if only because of the differences in portraying a story on screen as opposed to on the printed page. The first time I watched the movie, I deliberately withheld my judgement, just waiting for something to feel wrong, something to betray the spirit of the books. For me, nothing did.
I mentioned Starship Troopers because it's a perfect example of how badly Hollyweird can butcher a good book. I won't go into detail, because there's a Precious lying around, but basically the only thing carried over from the book to the movie were the characters' names. Everything else, including events, motivations, even the basic theme of the book, was discarded for the director's "vision". When faced with the possibility of that being done to LOTR, I feel the fans got off quite lucky.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree! :)
That's good, isn't it? Myself, I hate zombie weeds.
He may have just thought it was cool.
Or maybe he was running out of Elves to send. If you're not going to have Glorfindel or the sons of Elrond, it narrows it down to Elrond or Arwen. So Elrond would send his own daughter into danger.......:)
Yes, that's good! I was going to plant some stuff but it's so dry I don't know when it'll come up.
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.