Serving animals in HOBBIT film

[Sir Kohran]

I admit, what I said was very mean and not nice at all, and I deserve to be reprimanded for it,

Well thank you for having the decency to apologise.

I have been insulted consistently by StW and once or twice by you

I haven't tried to personally insult you and would never want to do that to any member. My apologies if anything I've said has come across as rude.

Just because some people think that Bombadil is a waste of paper and time doesn't mean that everyone has to agree and it doesn't mean that you're right about what you think about him.

I don't think he's a waste of paper and time, I just don't think he belongs in LOTR.

Nor did I say everyone had to agree. I just took offense at your implication that I was 'less intelligent' for not 'loving' Bombadil.

I find (& I'm generalising here) that those who don't like the OMW/TB/Barrow Downs episode don't like Tolkien's constant 'digressions' into M-e history, & also tend to skip the poems as unnecessary too (& all that description of landscape!- Why didn't Tolkien just tell the story?- a decent editor could have trimmed the whole thing down to about 250 pages & it would have been much better for it, etc, etc.).

Well I don't know about everybody else but I've always liked Tolkien's 'digressions', particularly when it's the Hobbits hearing about it; I always grin when I read about Sam's comments on Beren.

The poetry of Tolkien is fantastic. What I like about it is that it's the complete opposite of the usual text - the book describes lots of things in great detail (obviously because they're happening in the 'present' of the story) whereas the poetry is non-specific - the characters and events and places are described vaguely, allowing the reader to visualise these ideas in their head, and it gives off this wonderful dreamy feel.

Admittedly I sometimes find the descriptions of landscape a little tedious, but I think that's only because I've read it so much.

If the Shire is a depiction of rural England around the time of (Queen Victoria's) Diamond Jubilee, as Tolkien stated, the Old Forest/Downs episode is a perfect depiction of an older, wilder England.

I'm aware of what Tom represents - he's a sort of throwback to the old days when people genuinely believed in fairies and spirits and pixies in the forests and mountains, and in this regard he succeeds. I just don't think he fits in very well with the story at hand. With the departure from the Shire and the entry into the big, unknown world with the rumour of the Black Riders following them, this is a period of rising tension for the Hobbits - and yet suddenly they're thrown into a colourful, strange, fairy tale forest governed by a bumbling, carefree man in yellow boots. The whole sequence breaks the 'feel' of the story at that point for me.

However, I do like the evolution of the threats - we begin with the dangerous yet somewhat laughable Old Man Willow and end with the creeping darkness of the Wights.

Bombadil is an incarnation of Iluvatar, the creator.

Where was this stated? I thought Bombadil was supposed to be an enigma. At the very least the chapter never states this - how many readers, when discovering this skipping man in yellow boots, thought 'this must be an incarnation of M-E's god'?

And narratively, those three chapters with TB form a valuable bridge between the familiarity of The Shire to the more perilous realms; the Old Forest is a foreshadowing of Fangorn, the Barrow Downs of the Paths of the Dead or Shelob's Lair.

Interesting point, and ironic in that during TTT movie, Treebeard in Fangorn actually used some of Bombadil's words (mostly the reassurance against the night segment).

[Finduilas]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

Well thank you for at least having the decency to apologise.

I haven't tried to personally insult you and would never want to do that to any member. My apologies if anything I've said has come across as rude.

You may not have tried to, it may just be the way you word it on the computer. Saying "At least you have the dececy to apologize" (paraphrazed) sounds condescending, and as if Folwren has no other decency. I don't know if that is how you meant it, I am just explaining how it might be taken.

On computers it is very hard to tell what tone a person is saying something in. That is why on the Downs I try to stay away from sarcasm and rude remarks. I have a particularly bad way of saying what I don't mean. If you didn't mean to sound condescending and rude to Folwren, I understand. If you did.... Um, as I said, I try to stay away from sarcasm and rude remarks.

But, since you followed that sentence up with "I haven't tried to personally insult you and would never want to do that to any member. My apologies if anything I've said has come across as rude." I will assume you didn't.

Originally Posted by STW

Folwren.... you deserve no reprimand . Your posts are from the heart and good spirited so you deserve only a smile.

That is nice of you to say. I have never liked you better.

~Finduilas~

[Sir Kohran]

You may not have tried to, it may just be the way you word it on the computer. Sayint "At least you have the dececy to apologize" (paraphrazed) sounds condescending, and as if Folwren has no other decency. I don't know if that is how you meant it, I am just explaining how it might be taken.

Hm, I see what you mean. What I meant was that although I found the remark insulting, Folwren 'at least' had the decency to apologise. I think I will edit that bit out; I see why it could be condescending.

On computers it is very hard to tell what tone a person is saying something in.

It's pretty much impossible. This is why smilies are so useful - they give an idea of what the person really thinks. and can make the difference between a humorous jab and an insult.

If you didn't mean to sound condescending and rude to Folwren, I understand.

Good. There's more than enough bad feeling and insults in real life; we don't need any here. I hope that in the future we can avoid having to discuss stuff like this and get back to what's important - Tolkien.

[Finduilas]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

and get back to what's important - Tolkien.

Aye, aye. Point taken...

I have never been able to picture these animals. How would they carry the platters etc.? Would they walk on the hind legs? It would, I think, be difficult to do it this way, with out looking silly. Beorn should, as far as I'm conserned, be in there. His serving animals? I'm not particularly attached to them, but if PJ can find it possible, that would be great.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

I'm aware of what Tom represents - he's a sort of throwback to the old days when people genuinely believed in fairies and spirits and pixies in the forests and mountains, and in this regard he succeeds. I just don't think he fits in very well with the story at hand. With the departure from the Shire and the entry into the big, unknown world with the rumour of the Black Riders following them, this is a period of rising tension for the Hobbits - and yet suddenly they're thrown into a colourful, strange, fairy tale forest governed by a bumbling, carefree man in yellow boots. The whole sequence breaks the 'feel' of the story at that point for me.

I think that's because FotR, particularly Book 1, has a mood & atmosphere all its own, & is in many ways very different from the rest of the story. Humphrey Carpenter stated that he preferred FotR to the other volumes, because it reminded him of John Buchan.

Bombadil, The Old Forest, The Barrow Downs, all help contribute a mood of strangeness & add a dimension of mystery to the world of M-e - its a world with other 'dimensions'/realities: the world of the OF & the Downs is no 'stranger' or more out of place than the wraith world Frodo experiences when he puts on the Ring, or Valinor itself come to that. As with the world of Smith, Faery exists alongside the 'real' world. Frodo & the Hobbits pass into a different 'reality', with different rules, & a different kind of 'logic', but the whole experience helps them see their own world with new eyes. Frodo is exposed to danger, taught old lore, & tested (will he put on the Ring in the Barrow & desert his friends in order to escape?), but most importantly he is shown that 'there are more things in heaven & earth than are dreamed of in his philosophy. He also, let's not forget, is given a glimpse of the Undying Lands in Tom's house.

I can't concieve of M-e without Bombadil, the OF & the Downs & maybe that's another reason I have a problem with the movies - if you remove the 'Bombadil' dimension you end up with a 'sword & sorcery action epic'. Lose Bombadil & you actually make a character like Treebeard more difficult to accept, because he & the Ents seem too 'outlandish' - a world which has Tom, Goldberry, Old Man Willow & Barrow Wights in it is a world which has room for walking, talking trees.

[Sir Kohran]

Bombadil, The Old Forest, The Barrow Downs, all help contribute a mood of strangeness & add a dimension of mystery to the world of M-e - its a world with other 'dimensions'/realities: the world of the OF & the Downs is no 'stranger' or more out of place than the wraith world Frodo experiences when he puts on the Ring, or Valinor itself come to that. As with the world of Smith, Faery exists alongside the 'real' world. Frodo & the Hobbits pass into a different 'reality', with different rules, & a different kind of 'logic', but the whole experience helps them see their own world with new eyes. Frodo is exposed to danger, taught old lore, & tested (will he put on the Ring in the Barrow & desert his friends in order to escape?), but most importantly he is shown that 'there are more things in heaven & earth than are dreamed of in his philosophy.

I just find it strange in that the whole sequence feels very 'positive' - Tom is happy and humorous, and this clashes with my view of what should be an increasingly dark and wary section of the story. To me it feels like having a horror story and then, just before the monster appears, pausing for an interlude with the Teletubbies. Admittedly that's a gross exagerration but that's the feel of it.

that's another reason I have a problem with the movies - if you remove the 'Bombadil' dimension you end up with a 'sword & sorcery action epic'.

So how would you have done it? How would you fit the Bombadil sequence into a two-three hour movie? Every second counts in a story this big and I can't see how the Bombadil sequence could be anything less than ten minutes.

I wouldn't call it a 'sword and sorcery action epic' - a title like that befits something truly low quality like Eragon - but that's down to opinion.

Lose Bombadil & you actually make a character like Treebeard more difficult to accept, because he & the Ents seem too 'outlandish' - a world which has Tom, Goldberry, Old Man Willow & Barrow Wights in it is a world which has room for walking, talking trees.

The difference to me being that the Ents were treated entirely seriously and 'felt' like a part of the story, no more out-of-place than the Balrog or the Eagles. Tom on the other hand does not feel like part of that world.

[Sauron the White]

Lose Bombadil & you actually make a character like Treebeard more difficult to accept, because he & the Ents seem too 'outlandish' - a world which has Tom, Goldberry, Old Man Willow & Barrow Wights in it is a world which has room for walking, talking trees.

This claim is obviously untrue on its face because we have definitive proof. You see, we did actually lose Bombadil. He was completely omitted from the films. There was no sign of him at all either on the screen or in reference. And did this cardinal sin against JRRT and his work destroy the films? Apparently not since hundreds of millions of people lined up again and again to shove their hard earned money to the filmmakers. Both TTT and ROTK - the films with Treebeard in them - both cracked the All Time Top Five in earnings. Professional film critics around the world had high praise for the films and I cannot remember one bringing up that point. And groups which award things like the BATFA's and the Academy Awards had little trouble swallowing Treebeard without Bombadil in the mix either.

You make a claim that is defied by the historical record.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

This claim is obviously untrue on its face because we have definitive proof. You see, we did actually lose Bombadil. He was completely omitted from the films. There was no sign of him at all either on the screen or in reference. And did this cardinal sin against JRRT and his work destroy the films? Apparently not since hundreds of millions of people lined up again and again to shove their hard earned money to the filmmakers. Both TTT and ROTK - the films with Treebeard in them - both cracked the All Time Top Five in earnings. Professional film critics around the world had high praise for the films and I cannot remember one bringing up that point. And groups which award things like the BATFA's and the Academy Awards had little trouble swallowing Treebeard without Bombadil in the mix either.

You make a claim that is defied by the historical record.

No. I actually stated that 'you make it more difficult to accept Treebeard'. If you can point out where I stated that removing Bombadil 'destroyed' the films I'll happily go back & edit my post....

[Sauron the White]

Okay..... and just how do you even attempt to prove that statement? If they had done it your way ROTK would have taken in an extra $100 million? If they had done it your way than the film would have won extra Best Film of the Year awards in addition to the one for ROTK? If they had done it your way then critical acclaim would have been 100% instead of merely among the best reviewed films for those three consecutive years?

Just how do you intend to back up your statement with evidence?

This is just another in an endless series of examples of hyperbole employed as weapons against the films. And for what point?

[Folwren]

Well, maybe, if they had done it davem's way, the movie would have been more popular. If you say that he saying this is pointless and unable to be backed by proof, you implying that his ideas or doing the movie 'his way', as you put it, would not have made the movies better is likewise lacking in proof.

Whatever happened, the movie could not have been WORSE if it had followed the books a little more closely, could it?

-- Folwren