PDA

View Full Version : Merry and Pippin



Ariana Undomiel
08-29-2002, 09:01 PM
I was just thinking about this recently, but did you notice all the little events slipped into the film that made Merry and Pippin appear sooooo loyal to Frodo and so determined to protect him at all costs. The first event was when they were hiding under the bank out of site of the Blackrider. Did you notice what it was that Merry tossed aside as a distraction for the Ringwraith? It was their bag of newly found mushrooms. Mushrooms were almosts as precious as gold to hobbits. Secondly, they, along with Sam, were quite willing to fight an armed ranger in order to protect Frodo. Third, when they were on Weathertop they both jumped infront of Frodo to protect him. Then of course they go along with Frodo on the quest and when they are in Moria and Frodo gets stabbed by the cave troll they both fiercly attack the cave troll with their knives. Finally at the very end of the movie the purposly distract the orcs so that Frodo can escape.

~Ariana

joxy
08-29-2002, 09:14 PM
Most of those points and scenes were inventions of P Jackson's, and they give a distorted view of the characters of all four hobbits. Tolkien established what those relationships were, and there would have been no problem in presenting them accurately in the film. P&M come over as much too immature, childish to a large extent despite their bravery, and Frodo is far too weak, fearful, lacking in bravery, constantly needing protection. Sam hasn't been given enough to do yet and he is acted well so he comes over the best of the four. I hope he will be presented in more detail, and accurately, in the rest of TLOR. There are exceptions to this of course- when the film sticks to the book! What is the point in changing the characters so much?!

Ariana Undomiel
08-29-2002, 09:19 PM
WOW! Now that was harsh. I personally thought that yes, even though Merry and Pippin were given a slightly more childish character, they were very brave and loyal to their friends. PJ just expanded a bit more on their characters to add a little bit of lightheartedness to the film. Also, Frodo wasn't a weakling at all he just had a huge burden on his small shoulders. He was very brave though and he loved his friends dearly! It is true that Sam hasn't been given a lot to do yet, but apparently his character is going to be expanding in the next film.

~Ariana

joxy
08-29-2002, 09:40 PM
Harsh?:-) You should hear me when I get really cross!:-) (just kidding)

The rocket in the tent, the carrot scene, the dialogue in the sword practice, the skeleton down the well, taunting the orcs at Parth Galen, all made them much, not slightly, more childish- they were mature enough to find out about Frodo's plans to leave the Shire and decide go with him before Frodo knew anything about it- that gives an idea of their level of (non-)childishness. But about their bravery, I said myself that yes, they have it in the film, despite the clownishness. The film IS good, in (most) parts! There is plenty of light-heartedness in the books- why not use that instead of inventing slapstick that doesn't fit?
When Frodo was carried to the Ford like a sack of potatoes, instead of riding alone and defying the Nazgul, and then shown almost lifeless, he was deliberately MADE to be a weakling! When he cowered in a corner in Moria instead of stabbing the troll, while all the others attacked the troll, he didn't look too brave to me. Of course he is brave, of course he is fond of the others (loved dearly is a bit too strong, I think), but that only comes across when the film sticks to the book- which it does most of the time.

Anamatar IV
08-29-2002, 09:46 PM
he did stab the cave troll. And if there was a big smelly thing right infront of you that wa slike 10 times your size and all you had was a dinky little knife not fit for cutting cheese i bet you'd run.

Ariana Undomiel
08-29-2002, 09:56 PM
I do agree that Merry and Pippin are given a much less serious adult like character than that they have in the book. And yes there is a lot of lightheartedness in the book, but we have no idea how difficult it is to make everything work in a film. I personally did not find the Merry Pippin humor at all slap-stick but quite clever.

Also, I don't think Frodo was a weakling at all. I mean, in the books, he is getting sicker and sicker as they approach Rivendell, but then all of a sudden he has the ability to defy the ringwraiths. That might have really confused people watching the movie. I don't know for sure though. But I certainly don't think that Frodo was a weakling at all. He was very sorrowful with his heavy burden and his wound.

~Ariana

joxy
08-29-2002, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by Anamatar IV
he did stab the cave troll. And if there was a big smelly thing right infront of you that wa slike 10 times your size and all you had was a dinky little knife not fit for cutting cheese i bet you'd run.

Did he? I didn't see him, but then why didn't it retreat?
The others don't run, it's just Frodo who cowers, and Frodo's sword is no cheese-knife!

Ariana Undomiel
08-29-2002, 10:01 PM
Um, all the other members of the fellowship were attacking the cave troll except for the hobbits. Who can blame them? Merry and Pippin only attacked it when it knocked Aragorn out and stabbed Frodo, but that was because they were no longer defending themselves they were boiling mad. And it's true Frodo's knife was no cheese slicer but it would have had very little effect on that cave troll.

~Ariana

Beregond
08-29-2002, 10:32 PM
I'm worried about how Merry and Pippin will be portrayed in the next film, they were far too immature in FOTR. Billy Boyd should have been told change his accent as well (I know it was PJ's idea not to) - as welcome as it was on first watching to hear a Scottish accent on the big screen, it was out of place. If the hobbits are from the same part of the world they should have the same accents, roughly. Merry, Pippin and Frodo were from the more afluent end of the shire and should have all had the accent given to Frodo, while Sam's Yorkshire-Cornish accent was spot on in depicting the farming country in Hobitton.

Ariana Undomiel
08-29-2002, 10:41 PM
I love Pippin's accent!

I do believe that as the movie goes a long and Merry and Pippin figure out how serious this whole mission, quest, thing is, they will probably grow up a bit, and yet retain their lighthearted humor. Hopefully!

~Ariana

Beregond
08-29-2002, 10:50 PM
I HAVE Pippin's accent. It just seemed out of place. Its also a bit insulting that told Billy to use his own accent because it made him appear more suited to their representation of young Peregrin (ie imature, stupid)

joxy
08-30-2002, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by Ariana Undomiel
all the other members of the fellowship were attacking the cave troll except for the hobbits. Who can blame them? Merry and Pippin only attacked it when it knocked Aragorn out and stabbed Frodo, but that was because they were no longer defending themselves they were boiling mad. And it's true Frodo's knife was no cheese slicer but it would have had very little effect on that cave troll.

~Ariana

The point is that the other three hobbits WERE active against the troll-very much so- but Frodo just cowered in the corner. Frodo was "really" the first to attack it, by stabbing it in the foot, but of course he wasnt allowed to do that in the film. What was the point of making him the only weak member of the company in that scene?
The "knife", which was actually a powerful sword, had enough effect on the troll in the book to make it retreat completely, and not get into the Chamber at all for the others to attack.

joxy
08-30-2002, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by Beregond
I'm worried about how Merry and Pippin will be portrayed in the next film, they were far too immature in FOTR....Sam's Yorkshire-Cornish accent was spot on in depicting the farming country in Hobitton.

Hey, someone agrees that M&P are far too childish in the film!
There is just a hope for them in TTT- as they are carried off by the trolls they are allowed to change their silly facial expressions into expressions of real seriousness- maybe in TTT they will be allowed to act their "real" age.
Yorkshire-Cornish sounds an unlikely mixture- but I see what you mean and agree that his accent- shall we just call it "country"?- was just right.
His character is not much developed yet, but it has hardly gone wrong at all in FOTR, so there are even higher hopes for him in TTT.

warrior of ice
08-30-2002, 02:57 AM
i think they were made childish as to show the change they will have in the next movie.

what i rally dont understand is how merry and pipin got into the adventure with frodo and sam
they help them to reach bree but they thought they were going only to there but when stridder comes and tells them that they have to go to rivendel they dont argue and disapear from their homes without saying anything.
i hope someone can explain me this


sorry for my english
i am argentinian

Talimon
08-30-2002, 03:24 AM
Why only the next movie? They undergo huge changes in FotR. Pay attention. They are far more mature after Gandalf dies (Pippin in particular, feeling partly guilty for having awakened the orcs), and after Boromir dies the look on thier faces says leagues about thier change. Those are not the same hobbits you saw at the beginning. I think people aren't giving them the credit they deserve.

By the way, regarding the original post, you forgot to mention the fact that they jump in anger on the cave trolls head when Frodo gets stabbed and supposedly "dies". That in my opinion is one of stronger scenes showing thier devotion to him.

Pelvidar
08-30-2002, 11:45 AM
Joxy: "Frodo is far too weak, fearful, lacking in bravery, constantly needing protection"

The bravery of others was elevated at times, but Frodo was not made to look weak. See my thread on this subject.

Frodo's bravery and conviction is unquestionable in the movie. And the "protection" the other try to give him is supported by the text (not always in the same places - but the idea of them "protecting" him, and keeping him from harms way at their own cost is there).

joxy
08-30-2002, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by warrior of ice

what i rally dont understand is how merry and pipin got into the adventure with frodo and sam
i hope someone can explain me this

Your English is fine Warrior, don't worry about it.
There is a simple explanation:
A large amount of the book's plot is completely omitted in the film,
because they claim there isn't time for it, which is quite reasonable,
though they find time to add some other stuff which is NOT in the book!
The omitted part tells how P&M found out about Frodo's intentions to leave the shire, determined to go with him and Sam, made a whole lot of arrangements for them all to leave together, and did just that.
They didn't just come across F&S in a field and go along with them.

joxy
08-30-2002, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by Pelvidar

The bravery of others was elevated at times, but Frodo was not made to look weak. Frodo's bravery and conviction is unquestionable in the movie.
As in so many instances that is only partially true.
Here are two places where it isn't true that F is not made to look weak:
He isn't allowed to show any character at all at the Ford- he is just carried like a bag of potatoes, and laid on the ground almost dead.
In Moria he carries out very little of his original action, but cowers in a corner while ALL the others attack the troll which is supposed to be too scary for him to tackle.

Pelvidar
08-30-2002, 11:24 PM
joxy: "He isn't allowed to show any character at all at the Ford- he is just carried like a bag of potatoes, and laid on the ground almost dead.
In Moria he carries out very little of his original action, but cowers in a corner while ALL the others attack the troll which is supposed to be too scary for him to tackle."

You're linking scenes in the book to scenes in the movie and noting how they are different. That's fair. I'll grant you that.

But the movie, taken on it's own does not show Frodo as weak.

Yes, he's carried as a sack of potatos. In the movie he is too ill to fight. Someone watching that (seperate from comparing the movie paragraph by paragraph to the book) would not conclude that this makes Frodo weak. The very opposite in fact. His recovery from the wound we find out to be remarkable, and he is made of "tougher stuff" then might be expected from a Hobbit.

The Cave Troll scene, again, seperate from trying to compare it to the book does not make Frodo look weak... it makes him look scared, surely... but in the greater context of the movie this does not diminish the other grand moments of bravery.

joxy
08-30-2002, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by Pelvidar
But the movie, taken on it's own does not show Frodo as weak.

Yes, he's carried as a sack of potatos. In the movie he is too ill to fight....Someone watching that (seperate from comparing the movie paragraph by paragraph to the book) would not conclude that this makes Frodo weak. The very opposite in fact. His recovery from the wound we find out to be remarkable....The Cave Troll scene, again, seperate from trying to compare it to the book does not make Frodo look weak... it makes him look scared, surely... but in the greater context of the movie this does not diminish the other grand moments of bravery.

Can we have some examples of Frodo's (physical) bravery from the film then please?

At Rivendell I think it is made pretty clear that his recovery is due to Elrond's skills.

In Moria he looks weak to me, compared to everyone else in the scene who are all lashing out at the troll!

PJ said he wanted the film to be as close to the book as possible and that he had read it over and over to make sure it would be. We find in fact that in the film Frodo is too ill to fight at the Ford which he wasn't, and too scared to fight in Moria which he wasn't!

Pelvidar
08-31-2002, 12:09 AM
joxy: "Can we have some examples of Frodo's (physical) bravery from the film then please?"

The phyisical feats are mosly left to the "fighter" types (Gimli, Legolas, Aragorn). I'll grant you that. In that regard "physical" bravdo by Frodo is mostly reduced in the films.

joxy: "At Rivendell I think it is made pretty clear that his recovery is due to Elrond's skills."

But not that alone... I'll have to pull the DVD out to find the exact quote, but if my memory serves me correctly, both Elrond and Gandalf remark on Frodo's constitution. And Gandalf says as much to Frodo (suggesting that his own toughness helped him get through the ordeal).

In Moria he looks weak to me, compared to everyone else in the scene who are all lashing out at the troll!

We don't get to see Frodo bashing many skulls in this film, I agree...

PJ said he wanted the film to be as close to the book as possible and that he had read it over and over to make sure it would be. We find in fact that in the film Frodo is too ill to fight at the Ford which he wasn't, and too scared to fight in Moria which he wasn't!

Well, I don't think PJ got this film as "close to the book as possible" by any stretch of the imagination. Having just re-read the first 100 pages of FOTR this is quite clear. On the other hand there are so many aspects that are captured that on it's own (as an interpreted adaptation) I give the film full marks.

In this compressed (and modified) adaptation PJ adequately shows that Frodo's bravery and resolve is beyond question (regardless of the fact that he doesn't get any great Orc bashing scenes). Frodo's bravery is shown in much more poingiant ways:

1) In the shire while talking to Gandalf his resolve is clear in saving the shire from a great evil regardless of personal harm.
2) At the council, surounded by these great warriors, wizards and elders he volunteers against all odds to be the ring bearer.
3) Departing on his own to prevent the others from falling to the ring (and to protect himself for the good of the quest), etc.

These are just a few priceless moments that dwarf (in terms of bravery) any lack of orc bashing, and troll stabbing.

One viewers opinion only, of course.

joxy
08-31-2002, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by Pelvidar
Well, I don't think PJ got this film as "close to the book as possible" by any stretch of the imagination. Having just re-read the first 100 pages of FOTR this is quite clear....Frodo's bravery is shown in much more poingiant ways: One viewers opinion only, of course.


And I share that opinion!

The film as it is, with new scenes invented, with characterisations changed, is good, but how much better it could have been if PJ had kept to his original claim that it would be very close to the books.

warrior of ice
08-31-2002, 09:58 PM
talimon: you said that thy undergo lots of changes in fotr but i think it is an other change from the books. reading the books you have lots of examples that show M and P changes but in the movie are only a few of them so i think PJ did this for people who didnt read the books.

warrior of ice
08-31-2002, 10:05 PM
JOXY: i know the story in the books and it makes sense but in the movie they just apear and get involve in the hole adventure

Niniel
08-31-2002, 11:40 PM
I do agree with Pelvidar that Frodo shows enough courage as it is in the film; he doesn't need to show much 'physical bravery' because he shows it in other ways. I don't really like M & P's role; they are shown too much as a sort of clowns, who are only there to provide humorous interludes, while in the book they did much more useful things to support the quest; even just being there with Frodo and Sam to give them 'mental support', if nothing more. But I hope this will change in the next film, as they get more serious roles.

joxy
09-01-2002, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by warrior of ice
JOXY: i know the story in the books and it makes sense but in the movie they just apear and get involve in the hole adventure
Exactly, Warrior. PJ should have used some of the time he wasted on invented scenes to give a proper account of why and how M&P joined S&F.

joxy
09-01-2002, 01:27 AM
Originally posted by Niniel
I do agree with Pelvidar that Frodo shows enough courage as it is in the film; he doesn't need to show much 'physical bravery' because he shows it in other ways. I don't really like M & P's role; they are shown too much as a sort of clowns

He doesn't have much physical bravery in the book either, but on the other hand he doesn't just cower in a corner when in danger as he has to in the film! He is the first to stab the cave troll in the book, but hides in the film!
Clown is just the word I have been forced to use about M&P, who after all were quite adult at the time of the journey. Fortunately at the very end of FOTR as they are being carried off by the orcs they are allowed looks on their faces which indicate they are taking things seriously at last, and I hope they get a better chance to do so in TTT.

Ariana Undomiel
09-01-2002, 05:26 AM
Sorry I just don't agree that Merry and Pippin were clowns in the film.

~Ariana

Diamond Took
09-01-2002, 08:11 AM
-maybe not "clowns", but they sure were silly in some parts!:D
perhaps it may just be part of their nature, but yeah they were definatly funny, in the book and the movie.
-And i beleive that loyalty is just part of being a hobbit, it seems a trait that every halfling carries.
which is why i love them so much!!:D:D:D

especially pippin! ;)

joxy
09-01-2002, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Ariana Undomiel
Sorry I just don't agree that Merry and Pippin were clowns in the film.

~Ariana

Well they looked like clowns after they set off the rocket in the tent, but I suppose it's not quite the right word for the rest of their childish behaviour. They weren't children, they were adult hobbits.

warrior of ice
09-01-2002, 10:36 PM
i dont think they look as clowns but yes that they are funnier and more silly than the books so i think it is one more of all the changes PJ made from the books

Ariana Undomiel
09-02-2002, 12:19 AM
I agree with warrior.

~Ariana

joxy
09-02-2002, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by warrior of ice
i dont think they look as clowns but yes that they are funnier and more silly than the books so i think it is one more of all the changes PJ made from the books

M&P's black faces after the rocket in the tent would have been white on clowns I suppose, but the principle's the same! They were grownup hobbits not clownish children.

Winged Elf
09-02-2002, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by joxy
M&P's black faces after the rocket in the tent would have been white on clowns I suppose, but the principle's the same! They were grownup hobbits not clownish children.

Well, technically, Pippin's not an adult. He's only 29, which in hobbit terms, makes him four years off full adulthood. Merry, however, has no such excuse...

joxy
09-02-2002, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by Winged Elf


Pippin's not an adult. He's only 29, which in hobbit terms, makes him four years off full adulthood.
Thanks, I missed that!!

Diamond Took
09-02-2002, 08:16 AM
oh goody! that makes him more avialable!!;) :p

warrior of ice
09-02-2002, 09:43 PM
i agree with you joxy but i think that a guy that hasnt read the books wont say they look like clowns, i think they will see them as funny adolesent guys that will have a drastical change in the next two movies and thats what PJ is trying to show... because we, in the books, have lots of examples that show this changes but in the movies they dont have much time so PJ has to do this changes to M&P personality .
well, thats what i think...:p

joxy
09-02-2002, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by warrior of ice
i think that a guy that hasnt read the books wont say they look like clowns, i think they will see them as funny adolesent guys that will have a drastical change in the next two movies and thats what PJ is trying to show... because we, in the books, have lots of examples that show this changes

Yes, I'm with you on most of this. Do take another look though at M&P with black faces after they let the rocket off in the tent; I know clowns would have white faces, but otherwise they look like clowns to me! They begin too young in the film so have a lot of changing to do, I agree, before the end, when at last they are allowed to have genuinely serious looks on their faces, immediately after the silly orc-taunting, when the orcs carry them off and they're terrified of what's happening. Let's hope in TTT they will be allowed to be (good-humoured) adults.
In the book they decided to go with Frodo even before he had said himself that he was leaving- that sounds very grown-up to me, not the sort of characters who could make smutty jokes about carrots. So, they don't have so much growing up to do.

Pelvidar
09-03-2002, 12:14 PM
I didn't catch what was smutty about the carrot joke.

I didn't assume that was a phallec symbol they were referencing with the carrot... just the mistaken concern the hobbit had over breaking something when in the end it was only a carrot.

joxy
09-03-2002, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by Pelvidar
I didn't catch what was smutty about the carrot joke.

I didn't assume that was a phallic symbol they were referencing with the carrot... just the mistaken concern the hobbit had over breaking something when in the end it was only a carrot.

What else did he have that he could have broken?

Pelvidar
09-03-2002, 07:18 PM
Did he pull it from behind his back?

Maybe that WAS the innuendo, but I didn't catch it... call me thick :)

joxy
09-03-2002, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by Pelvidar
Did he pull it from behind his back?

Maybe that WAS the innuendo, but I didn't catch it... call me thick :)

OK so I take back "smutty" and I never said phallic, so I'll settle for silly, and out of character:-)

Talimon
09-04-2002, 06:17 AM
Originally posted by joxy

Let's hope in TTT they will be allowed to be (good-humoured) adults.


Let's keep perspective. We're talking about Hobbits, after all, and not the deepest of them all. Did they have charachter and personality? Yes, but they also had it in the movie. They had strong loyalty for Frodo in the books, but notice the end of the tale. By the time they return to the Shire from the Grey Havens they are already off singing again. But Sam doesn't sing. There is a difference between being loyal and being emotionaly tied.

Also, as much as I respect Tolkiens tale, let's not blow it out of all proportions. Hobbits will be Hobbits, and some of that means coming off as being more light-hearted then other races. Humans, Dwarfs, and Elves all have thier serious sides, as the movie conveys very well. But Hobbits are what make Tolkiens tale different and humane, and I think we should respect the fact that humour (even silly humour at times) plays a certain role in achieving that.

joxy
09-04-2002, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by Talimon
But Hobbits are what make Tolkiens tale different and humane, and I think we should respect the fact that humour (even silly humour at times) plays a certain role in achieving that.

OK Talimon, let me shift my brackets and we'll agree!

"Let them be good-humoured (adults)".

(I don't accept them being silly though!)

Talimon
09-04-2002, 08:23 PM
Um...how about just saying "Let them be good-humoured hobbits." :)

Hobbit
09-06-2002, 12:28 AM
hmm yeah i love pippin. he's got to be one of my favorite characters. pippin is so funny like when he said to aragorn after knowing that they had to travel again, "We had one yes, what about SECOND breakfast?"

i dunno if u found that funny. the way he said it was funny. :)

joxy
09-06-2002, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by Hobbit
hmm yeah i love pippin. he's got to be one of my favorite characters. pippin is so funny like when he said to aragorn after knowing that they had to travel again, "We had one yes, what about SECOND breakfast?"
i dunno if u found that funny. the way he said it was funny. :)
Yes it was comical, but it wasn't real Pippin. All the hobbits would have found out long before that, that hobbit eating habits have to change when they're out on a journey. It is far too late for PJ to decide to tell us then what the book tells us at the start, that hobbits have as many meals a day as they can get.