🧙 The Tolkien Forum 🧝

Welcome to our forum! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! Plus you won't see ads ;)

hidden bits

S

Smurfheim

Guest
I reckon there's got to be some discussion about some of the little things that were in the Fellowship of the Ring movie that really didn't have to be there. Little things here and there that were perhaps intended for the readers of the novels to get, or possibly to keep the diehard older fans happy...

Did ANYONE else notice the three trolls that were turned to stone while debating on the fate of Bilbo and the Dwarfs in the movie? It was right after Frodo is stabbed at the watchtower and he is in pain, and the others are worried about him. There in the background, are the three troll statues...

Other things that could have been left out but were not:
Bill the Pony--we didn't have to know his name or that he was going to be okay...
Gandalf's trademark posture--very nicely slumped, mr McClellan
Borimir's horn--There was no real explanation of what the horn signified in the movie.

And then there were a couple of homages to the first lord of the rings animated movie: The Nazgul peering over a treestump while Frodo resists the urge to wear the ring. And the Nazgul's attack on the "sleeping hobbits" at the Prancing Pony. Both were very similar to the animated version.

Just making small talk...
 

YayGollum

Conscience of TTF
Joined
Dec 3, 2001
Messages
5,538
Reaction score
6
Location
Columbia, South Carolina, the United States of Nor
I loved how they put the trolls in there! I noticed it the first time I watched it! Yay Bert, Tom, and William (I think)! Bill the pony is evil, didn't you know? Didn't pay attention to Gandalf, but Gollum's posture was good. :rolleyes: I did kind of think it was stupid that that was the only time we saw the horn! Didn't see the animated version. Is that bad?
 

Bill the Pony

Registered User
Joined
Dec 12, 2001
Messages
188
Reaction score
1
Originally posted by YayGollum
Bill the pony is evil, didn't you know?
Hey, what did I do to you? In the books I don't remember even meeting you, and I have never on this Forum called Gollum evil! It's not fair :( :eek: :confused:

In the movie I liked that they let Legolas walk on top of the snow.
 

Snaga

The Usual Suspect
Joined
Feb 11, 2002
Messages
2,261
Reaction score
5
The animated film is absolutely dire! Its so bad its almost good!:D

There was quite a bit of detail like that: Bilbo's copy of the map of Erebor is another.
 

Thorin

LOTR Purist to the end
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
1,402
Reaction score
15
I fail to understand the logic of those who seem to be happy with Arwen's extended role justifing it by saying that Glorfindel is minor or "weak" character and that he didn't add anything to the movie (??) and yet are just tickled pink by Bill the pony and the three trolls who have nothing to do with LoTR as far as the movie goes are slapped there for everyone to see and non-Tolkienites to wonder what the heck those big stone things were.

Maybe if PJ would have spent more time on things that mattered instead of things that had nothing to do with the movie line, other important things like keeping Arwen true to Tolkien's character could have been focused on. That would have made the die-hard fans happier then paying unnecessary homage to The Hobbit by showing useless trolls...

Cut Glorfindel and Tom B because they have no bearing on the story, but emphasise Bill the pony and add three stone trolls in the mix...:rolleyes:
 

lilhobo

Retired
Joined
Jan 2, 2002
Messages
536
Reaction score
1
INT. ORTHANC, HOME OF THE OBVIOUSLY EVIL SARUMAN



GANDALF

I need your help.



SARUMAN

Blegh. I vant to suck your blood.



GANDALF

Despite your creepy demeanor, I’m going

to reveal some secrets.



SARUMAN

I work for Sauron.



GANDALF

You are the wisest of the Wise.



SARUMAN

I’m evil.



GANDALF

I trust you implicitly.



SARUMAN

I’ll make you break dance.



GANDALF

You ARE evil!



GANDALF and SARUMAN have a really silly looking fight.

...........need i say more :D :D :D
 

Greenwood

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil
Joined
Dec 26, 2001
Messages
1,596
Reaction score
3
Location
New York
Smurfheim

Welcome to the Forum.

Yes there were lots of little hidden nods to the books for avid fans to spot. There were also a number of mentions of chapter titles slipped in, especially in the beginning of the movie.

You will have to forgive Thorin's post. These posts crop up all over the board complaining about the movie and especially the Arwen character in the movie even when they have absolutely nothing to do with the thread. Whenever anyone posts anything favorable about the movie one of these posts is likely to appear. I suspect Peter Jackson ran over Thorin's dog when Thorin was young.
 
Last edited:

markrob

An original FAD member
Joined
Dec 19, 2001
Messages
202
Reaction score
0
Location
NC
DITTO

I second what Greenwood said, and will add to it that those who feel that way are in the major minority. They even told us they were thru with the movie forum and vowed to never return but we see how that turned out didnt we......:rolleyes:
 

Aerin

Halfway out the door
Joined
Sep 27, 2001
Messages
691
Reaction score
1
Location
Littleton, Colorado
Markrob, I would have sworn that you were wondering where the purists had gone to...

I agree with Thorin. If PJ had spent more effort on staying true to the book, he wouldn't have needed the little extras. Of course, seeing the trolls and the map and Gandalf's posture was nice, but I was truly hoping PJ would offer a decent interpretation of LotR.
I miss Tom Bombadill, but he wasn't very essential to the plot. (Aragorn carrying around four extra swords "was" essential...?)
Glorfindel, on the other hand, had a very important role. Glorfindel was one of the most powerful Elf Lords, and even he and Gandalf combined could not fend off the Nazgul. (Arwen somehow managed to out-distance the whole Nazgul band? How does that fit into LotR?) The Nazgul's reign of fear was greatly diminished in the movie because a snippy little Elf girl could beat them off.
Arwen was not a warrior in the books, yet she turns out to be an imitation Xena in the movie. I went to the theatre expecting to see the Elf - not Xena.
 

bunnywhippit

Registered User
Joined
Jan 9, 2002
Messages
80
Reaction score
0
Location
Celtic Belt
You know i was just about to post a topic about this?!

The trolls - i noticed them the first time, and thought they were only some sort of monuments, and it wasn't until i heard someone in here say they were Bilbo's trolls that it clicked!

I think it's wonderful that some little bits and pieces were put in there. The deeper you look into the film, the more you see. It's great that we can look for them, and it brings so much more to the story, imho.

I liked how Elrond said "Gimli son of Gloin" during the Council of Elrond. The book has so many So and So son of Whoever's that to have that put in there at least once was quite nice. Ahh.. nostalgia ;)

I remember reading in another thread someone mentioned the White Hand of Saruman. The Uruk-hai have them put on their faces. I liked that, adding something that would have taken up too much time to explain, but at least it's in there, if only in visual form.

Hmm.. now, there were a few other things, what were they? Greenwood, yes, i liked the chapter titles put in at the begining of the film. Even if it was only so that i could identify them as such. Heh.
 
M

Mormegil

Guest
I think it's great that they put those little things into the movie.

You would think that the NPW's would love it as well because it means that they have something over the movie goers who never read the books.
 

TheJospeh

Registered User
Joined
Jan 4, 2002
Messages
63
Reaction score
0
Selected remarks.

The trolls added to the movie are a good idea. Not because they allow me to "have something over the movie goers who never read the books." They're a good idea because they are supported within the movie. Bilbo mentions the trolls being turned into stone while in the Shire. A clever movie watcher could pick up on that, the scene is not just for NPW.

The chapter titles being added in on the other hand, was a pitiful attempt to make purists happy. Counter to Mormegil's claim the purists don't want to lord their knowledge over the normal movie-goers. We want the movie to do justice to something we love. That's our only concern. I'm quite sure we all have better things to do with our lives then taunt people with our extensive knowledge of Tolkien. When the hobbits pause dramatically to mention a chapter title I want to vomit. PJ obviously has no idea how to satisfy the purists.

Aerin, good point, on the logical necessity of Glorfindel. Don't try and explain it to Harad though. He just can't "get" it.

Sincerely,
The Joseph
 

Snaga

The Usual Suspect
Joined
Feb 11, 2002
Messages
2,261
Reaction score
5
You guys make me laugh! Any diversion from the letter of the books is condemned. Anything about the film that someone likes is condemned. E.G. The trolls. If you remembered the book, Aragorn and the 4 hobbits do see the 3 stone trolls. How can you criticise their presence???
Glorfindel, on the other hand, had a very important role. Glorfindel was one of the most powerful Elf Lords, and even he and Gandalf combined could not fend off the Nazgul. (Arwen somehow managed to out-distance the whole Nazgul band? How does that fit into LotR?) The Nazgul's reign of fear was greatly diminished in the movie because a snippy little Elf girl could beat them off.

Arwen was not a warrior in the books, yet she turns out to be an imitation Xena in the movie. I went to the theatre expecting to see the Elf - not Xena.
You have betrayed yourself badly with this post. You don't really know the book very well do you?? So the Nazgul can't be withstood by Gandalf and Glorfindel together? So where's that in the book oh purest Aerin? Glorfindel and Gandalf never combine forces against the 9. Again if you read the book, you will find that Glorfindel's horse IS faster than those of the 9. So wrong again. The comparison with Xena is trite. Show me in the film where Arwen strikes a blow, wears armour, or throws a circular cutting type thingy. Or for that matter where Xena ever unleashes the force of a river to destroy her opponents. This is an adaptation, and if you don't like it fair enough but when you call Arwen a "snippy little Elf girl" your motivation is exposed: you just don't like a strong female character do you? Try dealing with it...
 

Thrakerzog

Registered User
Joined
Dec 26, 2001
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
Thorin,
Do you just copy and past the same post to every thread, with a little tweak here & there to make it "appropriate"?

That post is about all I have ever seen from you.

TRY to ADD something to the forums. We ALL know how you feel about Arwen, stop beating the horse, it's dead!

I can't believe how much you twisted that post just to make it "on topic" even though it really has nothing to do with the thread.
 

Greenwood

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil
Joined
Dec 26, 2001
Messages
1,596
Reaction score
3
Location
New York
Variag of Khand

You beat me to the keyboard with your post. The only thing I would add is that in the movie, Arwen does not take the Nazgul on in personal combat. Her horse, good old Asfaloth, out runs them as Asfaloth does in the book. Rather than let the Nazgul sit around thinking of something to do, Arwen then draws her sword and challenges them to enter the river where they are swept away by the flood. I call this using tactics and guile to defeat a numerically superior and probably stronger enemy. Something that one could reasonably expect from a 3000 year old elf princess.
 

markrob

An original FAD member
Joined
Dec 19, 2001
Messages
202
Reaction score
0
Location
NC
V of K

YOU DA MAN!!!!! Sheath your sword for a few days for you have dealt a mighty blow to the blow hard purists. Take a break and have an ale on me at the Prancing Pony.
 
M

Mormegil

Guest
Yay Vof K. Very well put:)

It's amazing how purists can't seem to watch the film on its own merit and enjoy it.
 
S

Smurfheim

Guest
I kind of liked the Gandalf/Saruman fight--sure, it was like Moses and Edgar Winter remaking a scene from the Matrix, but it was fast and violent and fragile bones hitting the floor hard and skin squeeking on marble floor. Almost as much fun as throwing ball bearings on the floor at your local retirement home...

And, hey... can't the die hard Novel freaks get along with the die hard movie freaks??? Can't we find a happy medium and join forces and focus our attack against people who deserve it--like Pauly Shore and Carrot Top???

The novel was awesome, but come on--if someone were to make it an exact representation of the book and include every detail, the thing would be fifty hours long! I liked the novel because you got to know the characters, and their swords and their horses, and the horses of their fathers and the dogs of their uncles....Tolkein's Homeric vision of making the story real through historical explanation. But I loved the movie because they didn't do that. Legolas, Boromir and Gimli unfortunately are far far less rounded characters in the movie, but I suspect that will change in the following two--well, except for Boromir, I guess.

So enjoy the novel for what it is, but enjoy the movie for what IT is. Is that such a bad idea???
 

TheJospeh

Registered User
Joined
Jan 4, 2002
Messages
63
Reaction score
0
Geez!

You pro-movie nuts really crack me up. If Thorin ever repeats an argument he is droning on endlessly, a broken record. If one of your ilk makes the statement that "the book is just to long to translate into a movie exactly" you all post congrats on this brand new pearl of wisdom! Everyone knows THAT and no one has ever argued it.

Anyone who liked the movie does not understand the intent Tolkien had for the novels. They don't understand the man through the literature and letters he left behind. This is fine, I don't understand most of the authors I read, however, anyone who thinks this movie didn't totally betray Tolkien's vision is being just plain foolish. The movie on its own merits can still be good, of course, though it isn't that great.

Sincerely,
The Joseph
 

Thread suggestions

Top