Gollum's Song (hankie-alert)

Have you seen it more than once Argh? I think it is important... and I would imagine you have not seen the extended. The extended is a different feeling film... that I am now using as my reference. So we may be talking apples to.... um... better apples.

I ask because I felt the same way you did about the prologue when I had only seen it once. It stole a bit of the innocence of the beginning, and it was hard for me to settle back in again in the Shire. After seeing it again now, and talking to non-readers, it was vital for them.

I also know that the first time I saw it, I did not see all the nuance that is there if you see it again with more attention available for the details. There may be things inferred or alluded to with a glance, perhaps really the actor's intention, a nod to the reader that acknowledges something more that is not fully explained, and perhaps it is me reading something into their performances that is not meant to be there, but either way, the film allows me to see it. There are many times where I know what the characters are thinking in moments where there was more to the story than made it into the script. Readers of the book know what is behind the nod, those that haven't read the story don't need to know, and the story works for us both. Does that make sense? - Anyway, I just wondered if you had seen it more than once. It was better for me when the shock value of the changes and ommissions had passed, and I was able to judge it on its own merits.

I love the whole work despite nitpicks here and there that I still hold. (I hate Galadriel-turned Halloween, for instance)... but I hate to criticize it too much because on the whole I think it is a fair and respectful retelling.

1. Bakshi: Bad enough. I thought the "rotoscoping" (the technique used to make the ringwraiths seem more "live action" by taking cells from the film "Zulu" and animating over them) was interesting, at any rate.

The "Return of the King" production that followed made Bakshi's effort look like Citizen Kane.

2. Tolkien on Disney:

From a letter to Sir Stanley Unwin in 1946 on some poor cover artwork submissions for "The Hobbit": "He has sent me some illustrations of (the Trolls and Gollum) which despite certain merits, such as one would expect of a German, are I fear too 'Disnified' for my taste: Bilbo with a dribbling nose, Gandalf as a figure of vulgar fun rather than the Odinic wanderer that I think of..."

To Jane Neave, 1961: "I am sorry about The Pied Piper. I loathe it. God help the children! I would as soon give them crude and vulgar plastic toys. Which of course theywill play with, to the ruin of their taste. Terrible presage of the most vulgar elements in Disney."

TO C.A. Furth of Allen & Unwin, 1937, on artwork for editions of "The Hobbit": "It might be advisable, rather than lose the American interest, to let the Americans do what seems good to them - as long as it was possible (I should like to add) to veto anything from or influenced by Disney studios (for all whose works I have a heartfelt loathing)."

Tolkien was a conservative with a capital C (only he would never capitalize it, but you get my drift). Nonetheless it's one one more reason I consider myself a fan. A sharp contrast with the author of a currently popular fantasy series-turned-movie franchise.

Kudos to Jackson, at any rate, for realizing the undesirability of utilizing midget actors for hobbits. The use of forced perspective was astonishingly convincing for the most part - and allowed the use of good actors and proper "hobbit proportions."

Yes, I've seen it twice, but I've not seen the extended, which may be worthwhile, I guess. The second time I saw it on TV on pay-per-view. For some reason on the big screen in the theatre the movie appeared a little grayed-over, you could hardly tell when the sun was out! (The commercials on TV showed me that SOMETHING was wrong with the big screen look I'd seen). I enjoyed it, surprisingly, from a visual point of view much more on the small screen. Therefore, I enjoyed it generally more the second time around, although the same basic complaint remained. I didn't think it was awful, I appreciated the effort, but I personally found it tedious. Now don't take it personally, but the Elrond's Council scene was much more annoying the second time, a particular place where I thought some of Tolkien's dialogue would have been better than the dull stuff they used. I found I hadn't missed any nuance the first time around, which surprised me a little. But I also pitied people who didn't know the books. They must have wondered at a number details as well as elements of the main thrust of the story, as Iggy mentioned earlier.

That Galadriel transformation was really hamfisted, wasn't it?

I'm just curious as to how you found a four-year old thread on the day you signed up here. But what will really get you flamed is when you post a vanity thread like the one about Legoes (most of us know you meant Legolas) that makes very little sense.

I hope you have a thick skin, because even the LOTR fanatics will have a lot of fun at your expense today. If you are genuinely interested in discussion, then you will find this a great place. But I would recommend that you take advantage of the preview button to proofread your posts. Also, it is a good idea to post a comment on an existing thread (like you did here) rather than creating a new thread if you aren't posting an actual article for discussion.

Welcome to FR.

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.