Did the film ruin your image of ME?

[Celebthôl]

Did the film ruin your book image of middle earth?
Coz it didn't really with me even though i read the book after i saw the film, it only did in parts like my view of orthanc etc.

[Arvedui]

No, it actually didn't. And I've got to give PJ some credit for that. I saw the movie again this weekend, and I am still impressed with quite a lot in the movie. Agree with you on Orthanc. I imagined there to be no such thing as windows and so on. Can't say why I have that idea, though.

[Celebthôl]

ahhh thats the awsom power of the brain, but most films ruin this but TFOTR didn't which i also give PJ credit for. On a different note in TFOTR that bloke that burps in bree with the carrot is that really PJ?

Celeb

[Mrs. Maggott]

Mr. Jackson did an admirable job in "recreating" Middle Earth as far as it could be "envisioned" from the author's words. Of course, when considering this, one must also realize that there were many places that he did NOT visit (at least in the first film) including the Old Forest, the home of Tom Bombadil and the Barrow downs. It may be we would have been more - or less - enthused by his presentation if these had been presented. But considering what was presented and what it represented (although the "Golden Wood" might have been improved if it had been "golden" and not green), he did an outstanding job, scenery wise.

However, it's just a thought, but somehow I get the impression the Mr. Jackson was more concerned about getting the scenery right than he was about getting the characters right. Or, perhaps he thought that getting the scenery right was enough and thereafter he was free to "reinvent" the characters as he saw fit. I don't know, but if there is one thing I have learned in film adaptations, it is that visual accuracy isn't everything. :rolleyes:

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott

I don't know, but if there is one thing I have learned in film adaptations, it is that visual accuracy isn't everything. :rolleyes:

Perhaps, but neither is accurate dialogue. If people bug me, I swear that I will print up Bakshis dialogue, and you will just be astounded at how close it is to the book. And yet the movie is leagues farther from Tolkien then PJ's. It is no old news that execution is everything. Some of the worst movies have incredible scripts, and some of the best movies have very weak scripts. That's how movies work. It's the same old addage, really: It's not what you do, it's how you do it.

I've learned something from adaptations as well: It's not how much you keep, it's what you keep. The difference between Bakshi and PJ is that one just included as much dialogue as possible and hoped for the best, and the other picked the most important dialogue and built thier own vision around it. The latter is in my opinion how adaptations ought to be made.

[Ithrynluin]

No it didn't. It is a nice addition to your own imagination,so you can compare the two.:)

[Ariana Undomiel]

No it didn't. It is a nice addition to your own imagination,so you can compare the two

My words exactly.

~Ariana

[lilhobo]

The Image didnt ruin it, coz only a fool would ruin such an easy film to do imagery-wise.

Problem is it didnt enhance the mental image either! The argonaths are nice and good but the dwarven city was total ****! Rivendell is some country town, not a great elven city. Only Minas Tirith looks awe-inspiring

[Talimon]

Rivendell was never really described as being so vast as to be called a "city". In terms of size alone PJ's interpretation is very accurate. I always imagined the valley to be a little less steep, nad have more actual surface area. But it was still beautiful.

Moria looked like ****?!?

[lilhobo]

Moria looked the tomb it was, and not coz of the bodies.....Dwarf city should have had some glitter of mithril; piles of pillar what does it mean??

PS. Orthanc was smooth if not round of stone. The image i had was a red earth stoned (light pinkist) round tower

[Ariana Undomiel]

Moria looked the tomb it was, and not coz of the bodies.....Dwarf city should have had some glitter of mithril; piles of pillar what does it mean??

Don't you remember? In the book Gandalf said that there was no longer wealth in Moria because the orcs had plundered it many times. So PJ's image was very accurate.

PS. Orthanc was smooth if not round of stone. The image i had was a red earth stoned (light pinkist) round tower

It's true that the book does say something about Orthanc having smooth sides, but it doesn't say exactly if the material it was formed from was smooth or if the building itself was smooth. In the film, Orthanc is built from what looks to me what might be an obsidean like material that is smooth. Also, the book is quite clear that Orthanc was black. It was the complete oposite of the tower of Gondor. So PJ got that right.

~Ariana

[lilhobo]

orthanc was described as being hewn from one stone, no jagged edges and so forth.

cant remember but i thouht the tower in Mordor was more the black one

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
....I will print up Bakshis dialogue, and you will just be astounded at how close it is to the book.
And yet the movie is leagues farther from Tolkien then PJ's.
It's not what you do, it's how you do it.

Don't bother; it IS close, and there's nothing astounding about that - when you go to see a film of, or based on, a book, you expect to find the dialogue close to that of the book. PJ's film is no exception: most of ITS dialogue is from, or close to, the book; only occasionally does it go wrong in style, and then it stands out as being wrong.
But in what ways is Bakshi so far from T? He has left out the same kind of things, made the same kind of changes - PJ has copied many of them, whether deliberately or not I do not know, and it doesn't matter which.
It IS how you do it; Bakshi does it reasonably well, in a shorter time and in a different genre; PJ does it very well, for most of his longer time.
And to answer the thread(!): Both give good impressions of ME, quite similar in many respects. Again I wonder how much PJ copied.... Bakshi's Rivendell is the more accurate; PJ's the more beautiful; I prefer PJ's.

[Talimon]

Bakshi's Rivendell?!? It looked like some cloudy samurai hide-out. It was hardly beautiful.

Bakshi's movie is just bad. C'mon, they can't even decide how to pronounce Sarumans name for christs sake! Go read this page:

http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/bakshi/bakshi.htm

[lilhobo]

hey Talimon, did you read the big fat warning??? Go back and tell us what it says??

[Talimon]

WARNING: This review makes absolutely no attempt to be objective.

And your point is? That reviews of art aught to be, or for that matter even can be, objective?

[Parrot]

lilhobo,
judging from most of your posts, I wouldn't think you had even a passing familiarity with the term "objective".

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
Bakshi's Rivendell?!? It looked like some cloudy samurai hide-out. It was hardly beautiful.
Bakshi's movie is just bad.
C'mon, they can't even decide how to pronounce Sarumans name
Saying "PJ's Rivendell is the more beautiful" didn't imply that Bakshi's is beautiful at all. Don't you read me?:-)
What does a samurai hide-outlook like? and are they always cloudy?
It isn't bad - my opinion; it is bad - your opinion.
My extended opinion - it's quite well done, for what it is; what it is can't be compared with PJ's, which is something different!
It's ridiculous that Saruman's S keeps getting dropped! Did anyone ever find out why? And the "Mr Frodo" is more irritating than lovely S Astin's!

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
Rivendell was never really described as being so vast as to be called a "city".
But it was still beautiful.
Moria looked like ****?
It isn't a city, or a town; it's the Last Homely House West of the Mountains.
PJ's IS beautiful.
PJ's Moria is just as I imagined it, very grand, very well done.
Pity about the extra bridge or viaduct being added, but it was done well!

[lilhobo]

Originally posted by Parrot
lilhobo,
judging from most of your posts, I wouldn't think you had even a passing familiarity with the term "objective".

here s another enlightened piece of thought

[Talimon]

It's ridiculous that Saruman's S keeps getting dropped! Did anyone ever find out why?

Read the link I posted. It's funny besides the point, but also informative. Apparently they didn't want people to get Sarumans name mixed up with Saurons. Dumb as that may sound, they couldn't keep it there. They had to actually pronounce it different half the time and correctly the other half!

[lilhobo]

yeah, but not as stupid as the ring just falling onto frodo's finger at the prancing pony....or how Frodo go the thick gold chain of the ring in time to put on the ring when Boromir attacked him :D

[Mrs. Maggott]

As for the Ring "accidentally falling" on (or off), one cannot fault Mr. Jackson for that particular trait. We are told by the author that the Ring does just that.

Frankly, one of the most unbelievable things that Tolkien wrote was the part in which Bilbo with Sting in his right hand, fleeing for his life from Gollum up the orc tunnel, PUTS HIS OTHER HAND IN HIS POCKET just in time for the Ring to "accidentally" slide on to his finger! Considering that NO ONE who is running EVER puts his hands in his pockets, this required almost as much suspension of belief as Arwen sneaking about in the dark at Weathertop. However, it is lated explained by the fact that the Ring influenced the Hobbit to do this so that it could make him invisible and save his life - this allowing it to escape from Gollum.

However, if that is the case, then we must expect that the Ring is equally capable of doing the same thing at other times. In Bree, <itb> it "slips" onto Frodo's finger while he's dancing around on a table in an attempt to draw attention away from Pippin who is just about to "spill the beans" about Bilbo's disappearance at his party. Now, why he had his hand in his pocket on this occasion is a little plot stretch, but again, he felt "uncomfortable" and the Ring must have influenced him so that it could betray its presence to interested parties in the room.

In Mr. Jackson's case, he could hardly make the audience understand what happened if the Ring "slipped" on Frodo's hand while it was in his pocket (we would not have been able to see the action), so he did the scene in the only way open to him. However, it is no more unbelievable for the Ring to "fall" onto Frodo's hand as it did in the film, than it would be for it to "slip" onto his hand as it did in the book.

In this case, I think, the Director cannot be faulted for his handling of the incident. :)

[Mrs. Maggott]

Sorry for the second posting; just thought of something related to the other point made.

Frodo would not have had to remove the Ring from its chain to put it on. The Ring must have been quite large despite its ability to grow or shrink (as noted <itb>) He would have been able to slip it on his finger even with the chain still through it. Of course, the chain used in the movie appeared to be much heavier than that noted in <itb> which was said to be slender but strong. :D

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
Read the link I posted. It's funny besides the point, but also informative. Apparently they didn't want people to get Sarumans name mixed up with Saurons.
Hey thanks, I did! In the comical spirit it seems to have been written in, I can't disagree with much of it. I just wish the guy would do the same for PJ; he shouldn't have too much trouble finding equivalents to SOME of his criticisms.
By the way the DVD confuses matters further in its subtitles, by always giving Saruman his S!
But the main thanks is for pointing me to the whole site. So far, it has also led to the splendid excerpt from Shakespeare's Tragedie of Frodo, and it promises several other equally charming offerings!

[lilhobo]

oh so the ring wanted frodo to throw the ring in the air, have frodo do a monkey dance and then falls conveniently on his finger??? not his hand!

bilbo reached for somethign in his pocket, it was to find what could help him in his flight. if Frodo falls down and disappears, the audience is not stupid enough not to think that the ring might have slipped on to his finger??

[Mrs. Maggott]

I did not say that the way Jackson handled the Ring matter in Bree was the best way or the right way or the only way. But it was THE way he handled it. All I wished to point out is WHY he created the scene as he did - so that Frodo would wind up with the Ring on his finger and set the scene for what happened after that.

As for Bilbo's inexplicable behavior in the goblin tunnel: I'm sorry, people who are running NEVER put their hands in their pockets; it upsets the balance and can lead to a fall. In fact, it did lead to him snagging his foot on something and falling flat on his face. Fortunately, his sword was under him and not IN him. Also, fortunately, he was off to one side of the tunnel so Gollum ran past him and not onto him.

Furthermore, Bilbo was not looking for something to assist him in his dire need. He only had one weapon - Sting - and that was in his right hand. To his certain knowledge there was NOTHING in his pocket that might have helped in a pitched battle with his assailant. Therefore, the only reason he could have had for doing what he did was the influence of the Ring as noted. :eek:

[Sam_Gamgee]

yeah it didn't really ruin my images PJ actually portayed the imagery very well most everything looked really close if not exactly what i pictured it as. or if not i though it looked way better the way he pictured it. so it actually gave me a better, closer to the book image

[joxy]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
As for Bilbo's inexplicable behavior in the goblin tunnel: I'm sorry, people who are running NEVER put their hands in their pockets; it upsets the balance and can lead to a fall. In fact, it did lead to him snagging his foot on something and falling flat on his face.
He wasn't running; he was "stumbling along". he heard G behind him hissing his usual "What has it got in its pocketses?". He asked himself "What have I, I wonder?", put his left hand in his pocket to find out, and the ring slipped on to his "groping" forefinger as he groped around in his pocket. He THEN began to run, tripped, and fell with his sword (safely) under him. That's the story, so for once I have to disagree with you Mrs M, sorry!

[joxy]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
As for Bilbo's inexplicable behavior in the goblin tunnel: I'm sorry, people who are running NEVER put their hands in their pockets; it upsets the balance and can lead to a fall. In fact, it did lead to him snagging his foot on something and falling flat on his face.
He wasn't running; he was "stumbling along". He heard G behind him hissing his usual "What has it got in its pocketses?". He asked himself "What have I, I wonder?", put his left hand in his pocket to find out, and the ring slipped on to his "groping" forefinger as he groped around in his pocket. He THEN began to run, tripped, and fell with his sword (safely) under him. That's the story, and quite reasonable it seems to me, so for once I have to disagree with you Mrs M, sorry!

[joxy]

Originally posted by lilhobo
oh so the ring wanted frodo to throw the ring in the air, have frodo do a monkey dance and then falls conveniently on his finger??? not his hand!
if Frodo falls down and disappears, the audience is not stupid enough not to think that the ring might have slipped on to his finger??
Yes, I think that, having seen what happened to Bilbo when he put on the ring behind his back at the party, most people with brains could have deduced that the disappeared Frodo had slipped the ring on while it was in his pocket.
The mystery remains, of course as to why it is in his pocket in one scene, and on the chain the next- as well as why the chain breaks so easily from a fall in soft snow, and how it finds its way out of F's layers of clothing and lands some distance away from him.

[Mrs. Maggott]

If I remember correctly, Bilbo begins to run for his life (knowing that nothing will stop Gollum from killing him now) BEFORE the Ring is on his finger. He knows that it is the Ring that Gollum is seeking, but he is running full out when he puts his hand in his pocket or he may already have it there when he begins to run, but certainly under normal circumstances when one begins to run (or panic for that matter) the natural thing to do is to have both hands free to do whatever has to be done to protect oneself. Bilbo's actions are a direct result of the Ring's influence because it does not want to return to Gollum.

Another reason we can assume that fact is that when Bilbo gets up after falling (and the Ring is on his finger), he makes not move to take it off even though it doubtless feels strange to him and might interfere with his ability to use his left hand. Yet he leaves it on until he discovers from Gollum that the Ring has made him invisibile. After that, of course, he would perforce leave the Ring on for the sake of safety.

The point I am trying to make is that the Ring is capable of influencing the behavior of those who possess it even when they are not wearing it.

[Mrs. Maggott]

The film is very confusing on the business of how the Ring is borne. For instance, I cannot imagine Frodo just keeping it in his pocket. <itb>, Bilbo and later Frodo keep it on a chain in their pocket (I suppose like a pocket watch with the chain around a belt loop, belt or something else). To keep it loose in one's pocket is an invitation to losing it somewhere and I can't imagine that either bearer would have taken that chance.

Secondly, <itb> Frodo wakes in Rivendell with the Ring AROUND HIS NECK on a chain that is described as slender but strong. The chain in the movie is much, much heavier and that's a problem. <itb> when confronted by Boromir, Frodo is able to slip the Ring on because the chain is slender enough that there is room for his finger AND the chain. <itf>, I don't remember if he had to remove the Ring from the chain, but certainly the chain is too thick to allow both it and Frodo's finger within the Ring. Also, the chain broke MUCH too easily on the mountainside, especially for such a heavy chain. The elves of Rivendell would have made absolutely sure that whatever else happened, at least the Ring would not be lost by accident. :rolleyes:

[Eliot]

Actually, no it didn't. It actually made it better. I think the locations were great and the same with most of the actors. I didn't like the portrayal of Celeborn, Haldir or Arwen. The actors are all great except that Liv Tyler wasn't that great of doing Arwen, Celeborn didn't have as big a role as he did in the book and PJ kind of portrayed Haldir as a stern and cruel guy.
Sort of. I mean, he didn't have enough scenes to show his kindness and all his scenes show that he is a very strict guy.

(of course he only has like 2 scenes and that's pretty much only when the fellowship are entering Lorien and he's kind of suspicous(sp?) about them).

[joxy]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
If I remember correctly, Bilbo begins to run for his life (knowing that nothing will stop Gollum from killing him now) BEFORE the Ring is on his finger.
Sorry, no; it happened as I summarised in my last post. Please check it.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Even so, let's face it - fumbling around in one's pocket (unless one has a firearm secreted therein) is NOT ordinary behavior under the circumstances. Still less would it be if one were to begin running and fumbling around when one was in dire fear for one's life.

It is a small point, but still I believe that it illustrates the strength of the Ring's influence: Gollum jumped immediately to the conclusion that the "what have I got" of Bilbo's quasi-riddle was, in fact the Ring. He had no real reason to believe it save only that the Ring was almost the complete extent of his conscious mind. On the other hand, Bilbo, too, jumps almost as quickly to the realization that Gollum is seeking the Ring he picked up and has "in his pocketses". The Ring has been in Bilbo's keeping for only perhaps an hour or so, but already it has made him preternaturally sympathetic to Gollum's mental processes, heavily influenced as they are, by the Ring.

This is one reason why the Ring is so unbelievably dangerous. One does not have to possess it for long (Bilbo above) - or at all (Boromir) to be subject to its pervasive and pernicious influence. It also answers so many questions about why certain people within the story act as they do seemingly against their better judgment.

(Sorry, but my books are in boxes somewhere, so I cannot "check" on any mistaken recollections I have made. Furthermore, it's been a long, long time since I read either The Hobbit or LOTR, so I am dealing with memory and that's like attempting to overcome a life long "senior moment"! :rolleyes: )

[joxy]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Even so, let's face it - fumbling around in one's pocket....is NOT ordinary behavior under the circumstances....
The Ring has been in Bilbo's keeping for only perhaps an hour or so, but already it has made him preternaturally sympathetic to Gollum's mental processes, heavily influenced as they are, by the Ring.

G asked what B had in his pockets; B felt to find out - seems ordinary enough behaviour to me. B didn't realise it was a life-or-death situation just yet.
It was only a matter of common sense at this stage to realise what it was that G had lost. The deeper effect of the ring took longer to develop on him.
G went past B, B followed to find the way out. They came upon goblins who saw B because the ring had played a last trick on him and was back in his pocket. He realised it was there, put it back on, and escaped, leaving G behind.
I only continue with this because you said:
"one of the most unbelievable things that Tolkien wrote was the part in which Bilbo with Sting in his right hand, fleeing for his life from Gollum up the orc tunnel, puts his other hand in his pocket just in time for the Ring to "accidentally" slide on to his finger!"
T was too good a writer to make a slip like that (or so I thought!), as you will see if you find The Hobbit and check my summary of what happened.
Having said that, I have to start querying T! You have already raised accurately the point about F putting on the ring while it was still on its chain, in defence against Boromir, and FOTR has him doing just that - and then keeping the ring on while he goes to the top of Amen Hen. How did T think he kept his finger and the chain inside the ring? It would be very awkward to say the least! Is there an answer, or did Homer nod this once?

[Mrs. Maggott]

These questions are one of the wonderful things about myths; that is, the story teller does not have to carefully explain everything. If it isn't important in the progression of the tale, it isn't defined. It happened, so there!

Just as Tolkien did not bother to explain how members of the Fellowship took care of their bodily functions during their long trek to Mordor, or if they changed their socks and underwear (always assuming they HAD underwear), so he did not bother to carefully delineate how all of these at times contradictory things took place during the tales.

Indeed, were the author alive today to see all of our very serious speculation about minutiae, he would probably have had a right good laugh at all of our expense.:D

[joxy]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Just as Tolkien did not bother to explain how members of the Fellowship....changed their socks....so he did not bother to carefully delineate how all of these at times contradictory things took place during the tales. Indeed, were the author alive today to see..our..serious speculation about minutiae, he would probably have had a..good laugh..

I was showing that Bilbo's first putting on the ring was NOT contradictory.

Other people have said how they ARE anxious to know what the group was doing at times when T didn't bother to tell us. They use this to justify PJ's inventing the sword-practice, saying how bored they would have been if he had only shown them travelling. I don't agree with that!

T was keen on minutiae himself, and anything that we speculate about can almost always be settled by a careful reading of his own words, without needing a PJ to invent anything new. That's why it's surprising that T doesn't seem to explain how Frodo can put the ring on when it is still on its chain -a very rare slip, or IS there an explanation?

[Mrs. Maggott]

Oh dear! I didn't mean to suggest that Bilbo's putting the Ring on was contradictory. Indeed, in the goblin tunnel, it is said that it "slipped" on his finger, a sure sign that the Ring was doing its OWN thinking! Of course, Bilbo left it on because I guess he began at once to suspect its powers - which he then actually learned from Gollum's running soliloquy. Once he knew that, he kept the Ring on in order to escape his adversary.

HOWEVER, when he reaches the back door, he is surprised to find that the Ring has slipped from his finger and he is again visible (I guess his hand was still in his pocket or the Ring would have fallen to the floor!). This is another move by the Ring to be "discovered" by a more acceptable bearer than the hobbit - an orc! He just has time to put the Ring BACK on his finger, squeeze out the back door and escape, but it's a near thing.

In this particular part of the book, the Ring actually makes several moves: it "loses" Gollum, it "finds" Bilbo, it "saves" Bilbo and then, like Isildur, it attempts to "betray" him to the orcs as they would represent a superior guardian in its journey back to its Master. This sequence of events clearly demonstrates the Ring's sentience.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
I didn't mean to suggest that Bilbo's putting the Ring on was contradictory.
This sequence of events clearly demonstrates the Ring's sentience.
Nice to be on-line at the same time Mrs M!
That's OK; you said "Bilbo's behaviour was inexplicable", I was trying to show that the book does explain it.
The line does say the ring "slipped on his finger" but at that point I don't take that to mean anything different from "he slipped it on his finger". I completely agree that the ring does what it wants, but at that very first encounter it seems like a perfectly ordinary thing to happen without any supernatural significance.

[Mrs. Maggott]

What I meant by "inexplicable" was that he was running around in deadly peril - with his hand in his pocket! I found that particularly "inexplicable" if one did NOT factor in the Ring.

Unless Bilbo knew of some actual weapon in his pocket (and, of course, he couldn't have considered the Ring as a weapon, at least at that point), why on earth would he have done such a thing? Surely whether or not he still possessed the Ring would hardly have occupied his mind under the circumstances UNLESS there was some power working on his mind from within the Ring itself that caused him to think that its possession was important at that critical juncture. :eek:

[joxy]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
What I meant by "inexplicable" was that he was running around in deadly peril - with his hand in his pocket!....
why on earth would he have done such a thing?
To summarise what I said before, after checking the book, he wasn't running around YET; he didn't even realise deadly peril YET. There's nothing inexplicable, nothing to explain.
He did it for a very simple reason: Gollum asked what he had in his pockets, he felt in his pocket to find out.
The ring does contrive its own destiny, but we don't need to believe that every little thing that happens to it happens because it makes it happen! This incident could have happened with any old ring.
Things hotted up rapidly after that, and the ring did start to influence matters- it somehow got off B's finger and back in his pocket to allow the goblins to see him, and then he had the sense to put it back on.

[tom_bombadil]

I would never let a awful film like that intrude on my thoughts of middle earth