LotR1-FotR-Seq02

[alatar]

B-A-G E-N-D...that spells comfort.

The sequence starts with the use (again) of the Middle Earth map that allows us to see where we are. You also get a preview of where we know that we're all going, such as Bree. We're going to spend a little time in the Shire, but just look at what's over those mountains.

But first we get to see Bag End. The amount of detail is just incredible! - especially if you consider that much of the detail is superfluous to the story. Who really cares if there are five books or six piled around Bilbo's desk? The answer is that these details add to the feeling of the scene subconsciously. Your brain starts saying, "this is a real place, a real room and the real desk of a real person who likes to write." And it reminds me of many professors' offices...

Peter Jackson stated that he liked the Bag End set so much that he paid to have it stored away, and one day hopes to live in it (though the cynic in me realizes what a pretty penny it would bring at auction...). Hope that PJ realizes that Ian McKellan and Elijah Wood walked off with a few things on their last day of shooting on that set. Obviously nothing too important, or I think that they may not have told me of their crime in one of the DVD appendices.

So, like in the Books, we learn about hobbits. The Shire is a beautiful place, to me more so than what we will see later in Lothlorien. Is that because this place looks more real, or is it personal bias? It's an Edenic home where I could live, assuming that I was half my current height and my desire to wear boots 24/7/365 was purged from my being.

Note that I hate the 'hobbit cleaning his ear' scene. Sure, they're an earthy and simple people, but this is something I don't want to see. Next thing that you know, we'll be experiencing other bodily functions from members of other short races...but I do like Bilbo's laughing at the thought. Ian Holm plays the character well like an eccentric old uncle that you love to have visit - though he annoys the prim and proper half of the family.

And another gripe. Does my first viewing of Sam, the sidekick hero, have to be of him staring amazed at a potted flower? Sure, they're trying to establish him as a gardener, man of the soil, but wasn't there a better way to do it? Could we have seen him planting a sapling? I can just hear the scene director saying, "Okay, now, look lovingly at the flower." Yuck. Sam, you just planted a flower, which, as a gardener, I would have hoped that you've done more than once. You didn't place a garland of flowers on Rosie Cotton's head or a kiss on her lips for gosh sakes!

And still on the same wagon, though I like the clumsiness of the hobbits who are raising the pavilion, as this shows again that they're my kin, but what's with the hobbit who cannot hit the peg? Is he drunk, clumsy, poor-sighted or other? Please, these are hobbits, not stupid silly short people. Having watched the rest of the trilogy, one starts to wonder if PJ equates small with slapstick.

Gandalf in the cart is Gandalf, not an actor. I was immediately sold on the movie after seeing Gandalf here (though the grumbling would still continue, as you all know quite well ;)).

Now the line about 'there's always been a Baggins living in Bag End/under the hill, and there always will' is a bit confusing. Exactly who takes over after Frodo leaves? We know it's not Sam (though it should have been) and Frodo has no other heirs, so why add the line, especially when delivered with such melancholy by Bilbo? Does he think that he will leave Bag End and the Ring behind, as it is he that is the problem? Doesn’t he consider that by leaving the Ring to Frodo, that Frodo will be taking up the problem where Bilbo leaves it? And that Frodo, too, will find no peace in this paradise?

Bilbo's mania over misplacing the Ring demonstrates that such a prize has its costs. And we get to hear about the "incident with the dragon" and even get to see the map of Erebor. More great details for us fans.

The children, cheering on Gandalf, show us indirectly the character of the wizard. Some older hobbits don't like this disturber of their peace, but what can you say about someone adored by children? And you can see that that fondness is reciprocated. Though how these young children know who this Big Person is is a bit of a mystery, seeing that Bilbo is surprised to see him, as if they’d hadn’t seen each other in a good while.

And Gandalf remarks about Bilbo’s agelessness.

And now for an aside: Having recently attended my 20th (yes, 2-0) high school reunion, I was struck not by how some had changed but more so by one of my friends who hadn’t. We speak routinely electronically yet rarely have the time to meet, with families and all. Anyway, theories abound, and I’ve considered that she’s either been frozen in ice, has discovered either the elixir vitae or time travel, bears one of the Rings of Power or is a doppleganger. I was able to scratch her skin, and so we’ll see what the DNA tests show. Anyway, my point is that one does not consider that someone hasn’t aged a bit after not having seen them for a week or two - especially amongst men, as these two, though Hobbit and Maia, appear to be. Gandalf’s observation of Bilbo to me indicates that they haven’t seen each other for 5 -10 years at the very least, yet we have the children’s recognition of the Grey One. Munching on minutia? You betcha. But just something that I’ve noted.

And note about notes: I bought the FotR soundtrack, and just love the melody (not a musician, and so insert correct term here) that occurs right when Frodo leaves Gandalf's cart. This mini theme reoccurs - obviously to remind one of the Shire - and it really brings a peace with it each time it’s heard. Kudos to Howard Shore.

The pan of the Shire, leading up to Gandalf's arrival at Bag End, is what is missing in other big films. Though I'm not exactly sure what is real in the pan, I think that that's the point. You get the feeling that the Shire is a place in which you could go now and visit - it's not CG. What PJ really gets right is the scenery. New Zealand is Middle Earth.

The shot of Gandalf's back as Bilbo opens the door is NOT Gandalf. Not sure if it's a sequencing thing, but this Gandalf doesn't look the like one that was riding in the cart. It may be his hair, his cloak, the color of his hair, cloak, hat etc. Or maybe it's just me.

The sizing effects, special or otherwise, of Gandalf and Bilbo work really well. You never get the feeling that these two human actors are never in the same scene/shot/reality together. You just see two old friends getting reacquainted. Even watching at slo-mo it’s hard to see the trickery. As PJ states somewhere in the commentary, once he established that hobbits were small but real, the rest would be easy.

And don’t you just love the shot where Ian McKellen bangs his head against the doorway? Ouch! An accident, but played off well by a great actor. And its inclusion into the film was also a good idea. We learn visually that Gandalf is tall, Bag End is small and Gandalf is not a perfect angelic being.

Glad to hear the 'butter scraped over too much bread' quote where Bilbo becomes more serious; this movie is about more than just overly attached ear wax. The smoking-bonding of these two old friends not only adds more from the books, but is a great pause before the chaos of the party. Somewhere it was noted that party scenes are notoriously hard to film, but it seemed that these extras (some family members) and actors were really enjoying themselves. The dancing, fireworks, tales to small hobbits all add to the festive atmosphere. The wigs that all but one hobbit extra wears weren’t the best props though.

I could do without the introduction of Merry and Pippin; understanding that we need to see that they are fools at the beginning doesn't make me like them any more. The touching moment between Bilbo and Frodo, lightened by the "gaffer's own brew' was a way to soften a touching moment - or was it a "dumbing down" where we wouldn't want to go too long without some fluff? Peter Jackson seemingly oscillates between the serious and the not so serious. The tension increases, yet we get a moment now and then to catch our breath (and, I think, to make sure that no viewer is lost along the way).

And the Dragon! Clever way to show that Bilbo (and Frodo) are the odd Hobbits. Bilbo is the least concerned, as he should be, having faced the real deal those many years back. It's hints like these, along with the Lonely Mountain map and the reference by Gandalf that make me love this sequence - details that are placed in the story, seemingly, just for us. Bilbo looks a bit too manic/psycho/desperate/unsure when he finally decided to disappear, as he's just too happy about it when arriving back at Bag End. Paranoia is one thing, but schizophrenia too? I like it that Gandalf beats him there - it makes Gandalf appear a bit more mysterious, and not just some conjurer of cheap tricks.

Then we finally come to it. Bilbo becomes the addict that he fears himself being stretched into. Luckily Gandalf is there to talk him down. And when Gandalf asserts himself, seemingly done with only a change of lighting, it’s just right out of the book. You get the sense that Gandalf has a dangerous side, yet isn’t going to pull out a mace and start thwopping Bilbo on the head. We see the kindness in his eyes, his love for Bilbo and this helps Bilbo finally let go. Bilbo is back to his jolly self, marching and singing down the lane. Gandalf knows that they will meet again, adding to the puzzle.

The drop of the Ring, magnet and microphone enhanced, is ominous. It’s as if the Ring is staying put, waiting for someone to enter the door. But who will its next bearer be? That would be next week’s sequence.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

"And now for an aside: Having recently attended my 20th (yes, 2-0) high school reunion, I was struck not by how some had changed but more so by one of my friends who hadn’t. We speak routinely electronically yet rarely have the time to meet, with families and all. Anyway, theories abound, and I’ve considered that she’s either been frozen in ice, has discovered either the elixir vitae or time travel, bears one of the Rings of Power or is a doppleganger."
==============
Or perhaps she's got a picture of herself in her bedroom that ages. :)

As for the topic: I find quite interesting the difference in speaker, and context,
of (in the movie) Frodo/Gandalf, and (in the extended dvd) Bilbo, discussing
events in the outside world. In the movie, Gandalf effectively brushes off
Frod's queries while basically the same observation in the dvd makes more
sense.

I also puzzled over the (nonbook) Bilbo comment about a Baggins at Bagend.
You could argue that Sam and Rosie were effectively "adopted", and
in the book lived with Frodo there, but in the movie they seem to have their
own cottage.

The children asking for fireworks (a great bit) could be explained as them hearing tales of Gandalf (perhaps by Bilbo). And I thought that the approving hobbit and his disapproving wife might be (and I think should have been) Lobelia and her
rather hen-picked husband- the actual dvd ones seemed too much a
characature.

And it's amazing the cake scene worked so well when it actually caught on
fire during the filming.

[Essex]

I also puzzled over the (nonbook) Bilbo comment about a Baggins at Bagend.I think it's there to add to the melancholy at the End. There IS no Baggins to take it over, Frodo did not have an Heir (as Bilbo no doubt thought he would......)

PS Gandalf DID NOT let off fireworks before the Party. BLASPHEMY!!!! :D

[Boromir88]

I'd like to make some comments on Ian Holm who I think plays the part of Bilbo perfectly. I didn't like Ian too much in the '91 Hamlet (with Mel Gibson), I don't think he makes a very good Shakespearan actor...rushes through the lines. But, I loved him as Bilbo.

The part that sticks out the most is when he says "It's mine, I found it! It came to me! It's mine, my own, my PRECIOUS!" He sounds exactly like Gollum and I love this part, I think Ian nails it down.

What I like is we see that something is troubling Bilbo (certainly it's the Ring). He wants to get out of the Shire, and comments like he needs a long holiday, and he feels stretched like butter scraped over too much bread, are powerful lines and we see that something's just not right with Bilbo. The Extended Edition gives us even more clues with Frodo's comments like "He stays locked up all day," or their exchange at the party when Bilbo avoids the Sackville-Bagginses.

Then another quick thing is when Bilbo gives up the Ring. I think Jackson does this quite well. Isn't there something in the book where Gandalf explains that he had to use a lot of his strength to get Bilbo to give up the Ring? I know he does when Frodo puts the Ring on at Amon Hen, but I think there's also mention of him "intervening" when Bilbo gives up the Ring. Anyway, I think Jackson shows this well.

Bilbo sits there staring at the Ring, Gandalf kind of comes from the corner. Then Bilbo lets it go, and there's a loud thud on the floor. It makes it seem as if Gandalf is intervening and telepathically telling Bilbo to give up the Ring. Then once Bilbo leaves we get a sigh of relief from him, and he seems a lot more "light-hearted..." "I thought up of an ending for my book..."

Another small think I'd like to point out, several times Jackson uses Chapters from the book as lines in the movie. We hear one basically right off the bat when Gandalf arrives "A long expected Party." And shortly after Bilbo leaves there's "Riddles in the Dark" which I think is a chapter in The Hobbit...right? Anyway, I just thought that was neat.

[The Saucepan Man]

And I thought that the approving hobbit and his disapproving wife might be (and I think should have been) Lobelia and her rather hen-picked husband.I believe that they credited as Everard and Mrs Proudfoot, both of whom are named in the cast list (see IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120737/fullcredits)). As I recall, the husband is the same Hobbit who proudly declares "Proudfeet!" at Bilbo's party and who appears again in RotK, grimacing at the returning Hobbits.

[AbercrombieOfRohan]

PS Gandalf DID NOT let off fireworks before the Party. BLASPHEMY!!!!

That never seemed to really bother me, though I've heard numerous times from other fans that it destroyed their viewing of the Shire and blah blah. I thought it was quite cute, plus the face that Gandalf makes after setting of the fireworks is priceless. The kids in this scene are adorable too; it was very much the Shire for me.

Alright so going down the list of shots:

The bits with the map and Bilbo narrarating over them were good. I know it was a point of discussion amongst the crew of the movie who they should have narrarate the prologue and Bilbo's name came up. I'm glad they found a use for his narraration in the end.

During his whole monologue, various scenes of hobbits being hobbity are shown, on the whole I think these were ok, though there is a shot where two hobbits are about to kiss and one takes a cupcake from a passer-by. The girl hobbit seems extremely tall and it's always bugged me. Do you think that she's as tall as the rest of the hobbits and the male hobbit is just particularly short or that she's a giant among hobbits and is taller than all of them? I can't figure it out.

PJ discussed how important it was to him that they get the digital grading right in the Shire, so that it didn't look too sci-fi and fake or that it looked to brown and dead. I'm certainly glad that they didn't mess this up either, because I would have been disappointed. There is only one shot where it looks too bright, and that's the one where Gandalf's cart passes in front of a field of yellow flowers and there is rolling green hills in the background. The greens and the yellows in this shot were overly done I think, but perhaps this just stems from having watched the movies too many times.

The whole "You're late!" scene was superb and generally I dislike Elijah Woods performance of Frodo, but I find this scene tolerable, if only for Mckellen's amazing job as Gandalf in this scene. Also, Mckellen humming "The Road Goes Ever On and On" in the background, while Frodo reads a book in a field, sold me on the fact that PJ and crew were trying to make the movie closely resemble Tolkien's original work. I was hesitant, to say the least, to see these movies when they first came out, because I simply wasn't sure if they could match up to Tolkien, but this scene clinched it (at least if "it" stands for exceeded my expectations, but never quite got so far as to be JRRT).

Mckellen's interaction with Frodo in the cart when they talk about Bilbo and such, was very well done.

The shot of Gandalf's back as Bilbo opens the door is NOT Gandalf. Not sure if it's a sequencing thing, but this Gandalf doesn't look the like one that was riding in the cart. It may be his hair, his cloak, the color of his hair, cloak, hat etc. Or maybe it's just me.

Perhaps it's that Bilbo's hair in this scene looks exactly like my Memére's. ;)

The party, with the music and the dancing was good. But, I have this to ask you, what is up with Frodo's dancing? It's certainly...unique and quite humourous. One can only hope that that is not how Tolkien envisioned Frodo's dancing. I really liked Merry, Pippin and the firework and I agree with Alatar about the portrayal of these scenes.

Has anyone else noticed that Thomas Robins, who plays Deagol in RotK makes a cameo as one of the hobbits watching Bilbo make his speech? Perhaps they are two people that look ridiculously similar and it's not him.

Upon re-watching this/these scene(s), my love of Ian Holm and Ian Mckellen is heightened. They are just terrific actors and absolutely perfect for the roles in which they were cast.

All in all, I love these scenes. These are the ones I watch when I have a limited amount of time and would like nothing better than sit there and drink tea, hence the lack of criticisms.

[radagastly]

One of the first things I noticed is that, whereas, most scenes in most movies start with an establishing shot, usually exterior, this scene moves directly from the map (used to establish the location) to the interior of Bag End, directly into the cluttered Study of Bilbo as he begins writing his book. It's the words of that book that take us out into the Shire and the world of the Hobbits. And what a world it is. Green, green and more green. I believe I read or heard somewhere (possibly the director's comments, I'm not sure) that the set pieces for Hobbiton were constructed a year early so the flowers and crops coud be planted and have time to grow. I could be mistaken, but it certainly looks like it's been there a long time, an established community, not just a movie set.

One brief scene, added from the theatrical version, is of Bilbo fumbling around his study to find the ring. I believe it was Ian Holm, or possibly Peter Jackson, who was concerned that showing this scene so early on would establish Bilbo as a bit of a psycho, and show him in a negative light. I'm glad it was added for the extended edition, though. It carries over the obsessive words of Gollum, "My own, my love, my precious!" from the earlier scene in his cave, showing the ring as more than an ordinary band of gold. I wonder if it's clear to people who haven't read the book first that it's the ring that Bilbo is looking for? Probably, but I'd like to hear from those who saw the movie first, or rather the extended edition.

Another important addition from the theatrical version is the scene at the party when Bilbo and Frodo hide from the Sackville-Bagginses. It should have been in the theatrical version as it's the only scene one-on-one between Bilbo and Frodo before Rivendell. The only other scene with both of them is Bilbo's speech at the Birthday Party. This is a rather significant relationship to slight in such a way. I understand why it was done (that old mathom, pacing) but I would think P. J. could have fit in something between just the two of them, somewhere, before Bilbo left.

I'll add more later, as there's more I want to talk about, but time is currently an issue.

[The Saucepan Man]

One of the primary aspects, to my mind, of Tolkien's opening chapters in LotR is the establishment of the Shire as a comfortable, homely place, one that is worth saving, albeit one which is not without its faults. I also feel that he seeks to establish Hobbits in general (and the main characters in particular) as characters that we the readers can identify with, so that we can feel more involved in subsequent events, as portrayed from their perspective. Certainly, there is much in the Shire that readers can identify with, and this would have been even more true of English readers at the time Tolkien was writing - place-names, familiar landscapes, pubs, mail service etc. (See the Chapter-by-Chapter (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/forumdisplay.php?f=41&page=2&sort=lastpost&order=&pp=40&daysprune=-1) discussion of the early chapters for more detail.)

How well do you think that Jackson manages to achieve the same effect, if at all? Clearly, the Shire is portrayed as an idyllic place, although again not utterly perfect. But it seems to me to be a place that many in today's audiences will find difficult to identify with. Perhaps it is sufficient that it is presented as a desirable place to live. What do people think?

Also, do we get the feeling here that the Hobbits are to be the central characters in this tale? Are they the ones that we feel that we, as viewers, will be able to identify with the most? Are they the humble "everymen" of Tolkien's book travelling out of a safe, homely place into an unknown faery/heroic world where they will meet danger and find themselves ennobled by it? Or simply just some of the main characters that we will meet in the film. I get the sense that, since Aragorn, Faramir and some of the other principal characters are less "idealised" in the film than they are in the book, that Jackson was not so concerned to establish the Hobbits as the viewers' main point of reference.

Of the principal Hobbits in the film, I suppose that it is Sam who most closely takes on the role of providing "viewer perspective", but I wonder if that is because he is probably the film character who most closely resembles his book counterpart. In the book, Merry and Pippin, less the comedy characters of the film, take on part of this role too and the reader is therefore able more closely to identify with their development as characters. Do you think that their "slapstick" portrayal here (as alatar astutely puts it) contributes to or detracts from the more serious roles that they take on later in the film trilogy?

[Mithalwen]

Have I just been corrupted by watching the French and Saunders skit or does anyone else just think "Tellytubby land" during the beginning of this sequence? Maybe they wer trying too hard or maybe they wanted it to seem "story book" English countryside. Yes the Shire is a pleasant land but it seemed excessively idyllic, as if designed by Marie-Antoinette. Perhaps it was made extreme to greaten the contrast with the outside world.

I thought the opening exchange was a trifle forced but then I find Ian McKellen a bit mannered generally. He never quite disappears into the role as much as one might wish.

Ian Holm on the other hand - well he just is a hobbit.... he was just about flawless as Frodo in the radio version and he looks right as well.

I think the itself was done well and I think Merry and Pippin are introduced well. Although it is an "invention", it sets their characters well and especially the relationship between them.

[Cailín]

I generally love this sequence - I think the Shire looks very good and when I was reading the books, it was hard to not see the Shire as PJ depicted it in the movies. The Hobbit children especially were very adorable. Though Narrator Bilbo insults Hobbits along the way, he does it with a certain fondness I really enjoy. I do love Bilbo in this scene and Ian McKellen (as has been pointed out before) makes a remarkably good Gandalf.

What I did not like was how the relationship between Bilbo and Frodo was portrayed. Though they express their regard for each other more than once, the fact that Frodo was not in on the plan seems strange to me, less like they're together in their strange behavior. Though this does make Bilbo come across as an even more eccentric character, I think it does little credit to Frodo. I'm not sure how to explain.

Sam was Sam and Merry and Pippin were - though different - still very recognizable.

By the way, just to point out the effect of the prologue, the moment when Gandalf bumped his head, my mother (who is not familiar with the story) was already so tense she gasped and flew up about a mile in the air. So that moment still amuses me greatly, besides the fact that it makes Gandalf look like a very approachable wizard. The moment with his thundering voice later on only seems the more impressive because of it.

Have I just been corrupted by watching the French and Saunders skit or does anyone else just think "Tellytubby land" during the beginning of this sequence?

I had the same feeling first time I saw the movie. ;)

[alatar]

Sam was Sam and Merry and Pippin were - though different - still very recognizable.

In what way? Do you mean that the characters were recognizable through their actions (i.e. Frodo would act thus, the movie character acts a certain way, and so it must be Frodo) or by their visage (i.e. Frodo looks like Frodo as the Book-Frodo is to have such and such garb, hair, face, stature, etc). To me there was little difference between Merry and Pippin at this point in the movie; surely I knew who was who, but initially we just see two fools.

Funny anecdote regarding your mother.

[Cailín]

In what way? Do you mean that the characters were recognizable through their actions (i.e. Frodo would act thus, the movie character acts a certain way, and so it must be Frodo) or by their visage (i.e. Frodo looks like Frodo as the Book-Frodo is to have such and such garb, hair, face, stature, etc). To me there was little difference between Merry and Pippin at this point in the movie; surely I knew who was who, but initially we just see two fools.


I was merely talking about Merry and Pippin, not Frodo. Actually, Frodo wasn't at all how I pictured him to be, though there are some moments where I do like him. But that's not for now.

What struck me is that though Merry is the more intelligent one in the books - at least, he seemed quite sophisticated to me as opposed to Pippin - there is not much difference between them. But as a pair, they seemed recognizable to me in such a way that, although their job is not merely making mischief in the books, they are established as carefree hobbits who are perhaps a little more adventurous the regular hobbits. For me, the most important feature of Merry and Pippin at the start of the story was just that, their adventurous side together with their relative ignorance. And I think the movies did capture that. That made them recognizable to me, though their function throughout the first movie is quite different than in the books.

[Boromir88]

Here's another little picture comparison that I found interesting. We have Bilbo's "story-writing study" in Bag End, and Frodo's, which of course is the same room.

http://members.aol.com/Brumblepop/essays/essayimages/studies.jpg

Right away we see Bilbo's "study" is more cluttered, with papers everywhere, maps, the room's just a mess. But, also the room looks a lot brighter, the sun's shining through, it's bright and radiant.

Frodo's room this is of course him finishing the Red Book in ROTK, it's a lot darker, there's a glimmer of light, but even Frodo's clothes are more, sort of somber looking. Also, it isn't as messy as Bilbo's.

I notice this and there's a lot to compare between these two pictures. First, the clutterness of Bilbo's room, and the relative emptiness of Frodo's. Does this go to show that Frodo sort of cleaned up Bilbo's mess? He cleaned up both literally (the room- Bilbo's notes, and the Red Book) and symbolically (the ring) what Bilbo left behind?

Also, Frodo's much darker room. It's kind of sad to look at, how dark the whole setting is. Does this display Frodo can't find hapiness in Middle-earth? In the Shire? Where Bilbo's room is more "exuberant."

[Lalwendë]

Never mind the prologue, this was the important bit for me. If they had got The Shire and the Hobbits wrong, I'd have been out of that cinema. I've always very much pictured The Shire as Tolkien's own art portrays it, and this portrayal was a little different. I often think how messy the gardens look, and as a keen gardener like a Gamgee, I know that they would probably be a lot tidier. But strangely, I was very taken with this view of The Shire indeed. In fact I watch it with no small measure of nostalgia.

Those messy gardens are like the gardens I knew when I was a child, haphazard and slightly wild, their owners being too busy farming to be fussy about the flowers. The characters all seem to make me think of some mad character I knew when growing up, including the chap with the ear wax problem. ;) Mr Proudfoot makes me smile because he's like my father but with more hair, secretly enjoying the fireworks but feeling he has to appear disapproving. I like the group of Hobbits sat round doing some hardcore smoking, and I love the Hobbit who cracks up with laughter when he draws himself a pint off from the barrels - he's having fun!

Ian Holm is splendid as Bilbo. Interestingly, he's an actor who can 'do evil' very well, as anyone who has seen From Hell will know. :eek: He also interacts very well with Ian McKellen; I'm sure they will have worked together before in the theatre. I have to say here, imagine if they had chosen Sean Connery as Gandalf? Noooo! ;) But to see both of them together as soon as possible after the start of the film was important to me, not just as it matched the book, but because it just seems right that Hobbits and Wizards are seen together, they go together like cheese and apple pie.

Interesting point on the design - I was watching a travel documentary about New Zealand on one of Sky's 500 channels of tripe and they showed the farm where The Shire was filmed. That big tree is still there, in fact it was a major selling point in choosing that location. The son of the farmer said in typically breezy antipodean style that they had actually been thinking of chopping it down before they chose the location!

The detail again is one of the things which grabs me. I liked how the hillsides had lychets marked into them, the remains of old terraced fields; you see these all over the place in Yorkshire, so it gave it an authentic touch. I also like Bag End, and I laugh when I se the books all over the place. That's like my house.

[radagastly]

He also interacts very well with Ian McKellen; I'm sure they will have worked together before in the theatre.

Actually, I believe one of them said in the commentaries that they were aware of each other's work, but had never had the opportunity to work together before "Lord of the Rings."

[Boromir88]

The only big gripe that I have with this beginning scene is Frodo's age, and it's not really that "big." But, I just find it odd that Bilbo is 111, and his cousin (I know Frodo calls Bilbo "uncle" but I don't think he's Frodo's Uncle right? I think they're cousins) and Frodo looks like he's 20. (Which Elijah was). Which kind of gets me (don't know about anyone else) to scratch my head.

Other than that, the acting in this scene is great, as has been mentioned several times.

[alatar]

The only big gripe that I have with this beginning scene is Frodo's age, and it's not really that "big." But, I just find it odd that Bilbo is 111, and his cousin (I know Frodo calls Bilbo "uncle" but I don't think he's Frodo's Uncle right? I think they're cousins) and Frodo looks like he's 20. (Which Elijah was). Which kind of gets me (don't know about anyone else) to scratch my head.

Wasn't Frodo 33? And also thought that he was a more 'elvish' kind of hobbit, meaning that he was a bit more fair etc. And in the movie I can't remember Frodo ever puffing away, and at least initially he seems to be a lad at ease - you may have to look hard to find some calluses on those hands - and so he may appear young for his age.

[Boromir88]

Wasn't Frodo 33? And also thought that he was a more 'elvish' kind of hobbit, meaning that he was a bit more fair etc. And in the movie I can't remember Frodo ever puffing away, and at least initially he seems to be a lad at ease - you may have to look hard to find some calluses on those hands - and so he may appear young for his age.
Oh yeah, during Bilbo's party he was 33, I was thinking he was 50, but this isn't til he leaves of course. :D

[Lathriel]

I love this sequence since it is really the calm before the storm.
I don't mind the earwax thing. I know it is silly but after this sequence it gets so serious that a little bt of silliness really doesn't do any harm.
I really like the quote, "there has always been a Baggins at Bag end..." The part that says that there always will be doesn't bother me because how could Bilbo know that his ring would cause so much trouble.
At first I didn't like the way Merry and Pippin were introduced, didn't Gandalf light all the fireworks? But after seeing the movie several times I got used to it. One of the things I immediatly noticed as well was that Merry's intelligence was brought down a bit in these scenes. Luckily he does slowly get up to his book counterpart later in the movie.
Well its late so I'll write more later.

[Lalwendë]

Actually, I believe one of them said in the commentaries that they were aware of each other's work, but had never had the opportunity to work together before "Lord of the Rings."

Yes! I caught that late last night - decided to watch the cast commentary track before getting into bed. It's actually quite unusual for two British actors of that calibre not to have worked together for that long so I was surprised.

Another reason that Ian Holm was excellent as Bilbo is that he captured that nervousness which I see as part of Bilbo's personality. At the beginning of The Hobbit, he is one of those 'terribly polite Englishmen', not exactly a stereotype, but a familiar kind of figure. He does not wish to offend the dwarves by refusing them his cakes but he gives his treats away all the same, not wishing to appear rude. Bilbo still has this quality, with a bit more confidence, at the begining of LotR and I found Ian Holm captured this really well.

Did anyone else think there may be something significant in the fact that while Bilbo blew a smoke ring, Gandalf blew a smoke ship and sailed it through the ring?

[alatar]

Did anyone else think there may be something significant in the fact that while Bilbo blew a smoke ring, Gandalf blew a smoke ship and sailed it through the ring?

Don't have my books, and so must rely on others, but wasn't that straight from the text? If so, and I think that it is, then this is another gem added by PJ for us. Think about it. Assume that you've never read the books. What does it matter then what shape Gandalf blows smoke into?

What will become apparent as the trilogy progresses is that these gems become more rare. Is that because PJ felt that he had to get this movie right, for both fans and non-fans, in order to acquire more capital that would buy him a freer hand in the following movies?

[Mithalwen]

The only big gripe that I have with this beginning scene is Frodo's age, and it's not really that "big." But, I just find it odd that Bilbo is 111, and his cousin (I know Frodo calls Bilbo "uncle" but I don't think he's Frodo's Uncle right? I think they're cousins) and Frodo looks like he's 20. (Which Elijah was). Which kind of gets me (don't know about anyone else) to scratch my head.



Well they aren't first cousins - save at two removes and second cousins once removed the other way.

In my family (and I am sure this isn't unique) we were taught to address various elderly cousins ( such as the first cousins of my grandparents) as Auntie and Uncle out of deference. Although Merry and Pippin use it sometimes in the books, I don't think cousin is widely used as a term of address. I am fairly sure that Frodo refers to Bilbo as uncle in the books.

[The Saucepan Man]

What will become apparent as the trilogy progresses is that these gems become more rare. Is that because PJ felt that he had to get this movie right, for both fans and non-fans, in order to acquire more capital that would buy him a freer hand in the following movies?I am not sure that I fully agree, given that the detail is pretty consistent all the way through. But I see what you are getting at. I wonder if it's because, when adapting a novel to film, the beginning and ending pretty much have to follow the original plot (because both stories, although different, are coming from and going to the same place), whereas the adapter has more of a free hand with the detail of what occurs in between.

... does anyone else just think "Tellytubby land" during the beginning of this sequence? Maybe they wer trying too hard or maybe they wanted it to seem "story book" English countryside. Yes the Shire is a pleasant land but it seemed excessively idyllic ...Yes. That's one of the points that I was trying to get at in my earlier post. Did Jackson perhaps feel the need to "over-idealise" the Shire in order to make it a desirable place for modern audiences? Tolkien presents us with something of an idealised place, but one which is nevertheless practical and feels "real". I agree that Jackson's Shire feels rather less real, and more like a fairytale setting. In some ways, Jackson's Hobbits travel from a fairytale world into a more real world (where the Men are less idealised and more "human"), whereas Tolkien's Hobbits travel from a real world, via Faerie (the Old Forest and the Barrow Downs), into an epic, heroic world.

[Rimbaud]

I agree, and also would have preferred a lower key approach. However, New Line were well aware that audiences outside Tolkienites would be for the most part watching for pure escapism; in this light, over stylised settings are almost a must. Funnily enough I didn't mind Rivendell though, despite it being perhaps the most OTT on display. Perhaps this is because Tolkien drew it in such a misty-eyed fashion?

[Mithalwen]

I know one non-Tolkinite who slept until Weathertop......

I too didn't mind RIvendell - which is meant to be "perfect" - and found Lorien a little disappointing... never really saw a mallorn :( . Maybe it is because Lorien and Rivendell in my mind, but live in th English countryside?

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë
Did anyone else think there may be something significant in the fact that while Bilbo blew a smoke ring, Gandalf blew a smoke ship and sailed it through the ring?


Don't have my books, and so must rely on others, but wasn't that straight from the text? I
=================

Wasn't that from the beginning of The Hobbit, before they left Bagend?

[bilbo_baggins]

Yes. It is in TH, I think. Thorin blows smoke rings that change colors, and Gandalfs send other smoke rings after it and also a ship later in the same chapter. I think.

I think that the smoke 'ship' shows comaraderie (sp?) between Bilbo and Gandalf and also adds the wizard aspect of Gandalf.

And I'm almost 80% certain that Frodo is Bilbo's nephew. Drogo Baggins, who was Frodo's father was bilbo's brother, I think. I know that Frodo was Drogo's son and that both Frodo's parents died in a boating accident in the Brandywine. Everyone probably knows that...

And why is that Sam is so shy about Rosy, and then so brashly courageous in eavesdropping later? Or honest in telling what he heard.

The Rivendell and Lorien scenes did seem to digress from book reality. Why is there a crossroad right in front of the gates? You wouldn't turn south until you cross the river again...

And the Extended Lorien scene really makes me feel the height of the mallorn trees and the part on Cerin Amroth brings to mind the love scene in the Appendices between Aragorn and Arwen.

Just some thoughts...

[Boromir88]

I think the scenery was one of the movies strongest points, I was overall pleased with it (along with the acting and the score). I thought Minas Tirith and Rivendell were done beautifully, I liked Rohan and Edoras. The Shire, I pictured as just exactly as shown, rolling mounds and little hobbit homes. (Sinnce I'm not a gardner, I wouldn't notice things such as messy gardens.)

I also liked them keeping in Gandalf bumping his head on the wall. This actually wasn't planned, it was all done by Mckellan who accidently knocked his head, and they decided to keep it in. I think it adds to the lighter side in the beginning of the movie, which I think the beginning should be (up until the whole Ring is sort of discovered).

I imagined Bilbo and Gandalf long time friends kind of a light-heart, somewhat "laughable" beginning, with this underlying problem of the ring, and Mckellan bumping his head (though unintentionally) kind of fits.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

These scenes are done pretty well. I don't mind the gentle poking fun at the Shire-hobbits; after all, in movies like these, you'll take humor pretty much wherever you can get it.

Howard Shore's "Concerning Hobbits" is absolutely beautiful and really captures the essence of the Shire. One of my favorite score tracks.

Ian and Ian simply are Gandalf and Bilbo. They are the bright spot in what is (in my mind) an otherwise subpar first half of the movie. (To me, the movie doesn't really begin to get good till the Company leaves Rivendell.) They play off of each other so well, and, well, like I said, they simply are Gandalf and Bilbo. I think all of the casting for the films was brilliantly done, but these are two of THE best.

[Cailín]

And why is that Sam is so shy about Rosy, and then so brashly courageous in eavesdropping later? Or honest in telling what he heard.

Well, risking being a little off-topic, I think that confessing your feelings to someone is about the hardest and scariest thing to do. Honestly, sometimes I feel I'd rather fight a whole army of Orcs than tell someone how I really feel about them. ;)

[Mithalwen]

This sequence also features the most appropriate appearance of the Jackson moppets.

I think they did this sequence quite well considering that the book is slow and so twee at this point with Gandalf still beig in "well bless my beard" mode. But for me the film like the book doesn't really get going til Bree.

Since Sam has been mentioned, the film's interpretaion of Sam until the mordor scenes is one of my main dislikes of the whole project. I feel that most of the characters are lessened but Sam suffers perhaps most.

[Mister Underhill]

I'm a little late to the party on this one -- the internet crack known as Werewolf is time- and mind-consuming -- so this may be a little scattershot:

alatar, that note about Gandalf and the "haven't aged a day" line and the kids -- now that's some close watching. I like to think I'm pretty detail-oriented, but that's one that never occurred to me. I think you might even be able to write it off a bit -- at 111, even a few years ought to make a difference. It's like Gandalf keeps waiting for Bilbo to "hit the wall", but he never does.
But it seems to me to be a place that many in today's audiences will find difficult to identify with. Hunh. I don't understand you on this one, Sauce. Pesky relatives, good friends, eating, drinking, smoking, dancing, a little bit of honest work -- I think Jackson does a fine job of establishing the Shire as an idyllic and relatively easily identifiable place. I think a lot of people have a "quiet country life" fantasy that is more or less perfectly embodied here. I've never bought into the thesis that English readers have a stronger identification with the Shire than any other readers anyway.

I can find little to fault in this sequence, especially as pertains Gandalf and Bilbo. I couldn't disagree more -- with all due respect -- with Mithalwen's comments about McKellan. I bought into his Gandalf instantly, and I love his performance throughout this sequence -- his gentle good humor, his sincere affection for the hobbits and especially for Bilbo, and most of all his growing disquiet about Bilbo's ring, which is all played in reaction shots to various foreboding signs and hints in dialogue. If only such a deft and subtle performance could have been had from Woods later in the trilogy. I've always thought that if the trilogy deserved an acting Oscar, it should have gone to McKellan for his performance in FotR, which has all the best Gandalf scenes for my money. I wonder if Gandalf ever regretted having to come back just because "Fly, you fools!" are such perfect last words. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

The scenes between McKellan and Holme are pitch-perfect for the most part. The effects, both practical and computer-generated, are extremely successful, and though you can spot flaws now that you know the secrets of the magic trick, I don't think I ever questioned the visual reality of Bilbo as hobbit-sized and Gandalf as one of the Big People.

There are several points in the sequence that never fail to give me chills ("In fact I mean not to.") or raise a little mist ("All your long years, we've been friends. Trust me now, as you once did."). Holme does a good job swinging back and forth between comical eccentricity and Ring-obsession. Somebody mentioned they didn't like Holme's Polonius in Hamlet, but I thought he was very good because he has a talent for handling those transitions between comedy and drama. I love the scene in Bag End in which Bilbo finally gives up the Ring because it's so close to the book.

Jackson previews the sensibility that will put his personal stamp on the adaptations with several broad slapstick touches -- the much-mentioned ear-wax, and the introduction of Merry and Pippin, among others. What can I say? I like slapstick as much as anybody, but I wish Jackson's instinct for it had been more restrained for the trilogy.

One thing that doesn't grate too strongly here, but that I think I didn't love as the trilogy progressed, is the subtle shift in dynamics achieved by having such a youthful Frodo matched up with an older Sam. I'm not even sure offhand what the age difference is supposed to be in the books, but when I read them I get a much stronger sense of Frodo as the oldest of the four hobbits, whereas here he comes across clearly to me as the youngest -- and throughout the films I think an older brothers/baby brother type dynamic develops between the actors, if not the characters, slightly altering their relationships.

Out of all the characters, Astin's Samwise is the farthest from my own mental picture. I don't recollect the true details of book Sam offhand, but my Sam has very dark hair, maybe receding a bit, is probably the slimmest rather than the fattest of the hobbits, and I think has a mustache -- don't ask me why. I don't like how Astin plays him more simpleton than just simple in these early scenes, though his performance grows on me later.

Bag End is a fantastic piece of art design. All that clutter -- it's just how Bag End should look.

Overall, I think the sequence does a good job of establishing the Shire and the feeling of hobbit society and has many nice touches for Tolkien fans. But I can see why more casual moviegoers might get a little restless -- this scene is mostly just more exposition, and after the prologue the audience already knows how deadly dangerous the Ring is and has to wait for the characters to catch up.

[The Saucepan Man]

Hunh. I don't understand you on this one, Sauce. Pesky relatives, good friends, eating, drinking, smoking, dancing, a little bit of honest work -- I think Jackson does a fine job of establishing the Shire as an idyllic and relatively easily identifiable place.Idyllic, yes. Identifiable to most audiences? I would say not. Indeed, I would say "aspirational", rather than "identifiable". As you say, it may appeal to people's "quiet country life" fantasy, but it is not a place which I think that modern audiences will find easy to identify with as a "grounding" point, even those living in rural areas.

You see, I believe that Tolkien intended his readers to identify with his Hobbit characters most closely out of all his characters, and so he portrayed their land and culture in a way which would be recognisable to readers at the time that he was writing. But times have moved on and I would have thought that only a tiny minority of people today would recognise this idyllic Shire as being anything like their own home environment. I was therefore wondering whether audiences are able to identify as much with the Hobbit characters in the film in the same way as Tolkien intended in the book, or indeed whether Jackson intended them to. His human characters are much less idealised than Tolkien's in most case, so perhaps they (Aragorn, Faramir, Eowyn etc) were intended by Jackson to provide the reference point for his viewers.

I've never bought into the thesis that English readers have a stronger identification with the Shire than any other readers anyway.I wasn't suggesting that they necessarily will have. My point is that Tolkien's description of the Shire is based on his experience of rural England in the first half of the 20th century and was intended to be a place familiar to English readers of that period (his anticipated readership). While such rural areas at that time were by no means as idyllic as the Shire, my sense is that the Shire, as depicted in both book and film, is much more akin to them than it is to rural areas of today, wherever located.

[Boromir88]

Somebody mentioned they didn't like Holme's Polonius in Hamlet, but I thought he was very good because he has a talent for handling those transitions between comedy and drama. I love the scene in Bag End in which Bilbo finally gives up the Ring because it's so close to the book.~Mr. Underhill
It wasn't so much Holm's acting in Hamlet, because I think Holm is a terriffic actor and I love him as Bilbo. But, when watching that movie, I think he rushed through the lines and I had trouble understanding half of them.

One other thing I noticed is a reoccuring theme with "fate and the ring." What I mean is, there's this reoccuring theme that everyone is tied to the Ring (not just the obvious ones like Sauron, Gollum, Frodo, and Arwen-for some reason?), but everyone. Everyone involved is tied to the Ring, and at the end of this sequence, when Bilbo leaves I think we see it again.

After he lets go of the Ring (and I agree with Underhill this scene between Gandalf and Bilbo was flawless), he says "I thought of an ending for my book. And he shall live happily ever after until the end of his days." I think it's no coincidence that when he lets go of the ring, he's able to think of an ending for his book. His part to play in the Ring's tale is over, and his book, his life is over. He can now go and relax in Rivendell and rest their peacefully.

[Mister Underhill]

Hmm, interesting theories, Sauce, though I disagree on most of your points. :)

Unless I'm badly mistaken, Tolkien's Shire wasn't much like the average world of the average Englander in the 1930's-50's, at least setting-wise. Anyway, I don't think audiences are really intended to identify with setting as such, but with characters -- their emotions, wants, desires, problems. For instance, in the sequence, Bilbo contemplates leaving his home, friends, and family behind. That's easy to identify with. In Star Wars, Luke lives on an alien desert planet and deals with robots and Jawas and such -- but I don't think we have any trouble identifying with him or his desire to bust out of his limited life and have some adventure.

I do agree, however, about Jackson's take on Men and his elevation of what he saw as a theme there -- so much so that I think a weird shift starts to happen somewhere in TTT and Aragorn becomes foregrounded as a character who is at least as important as Frodo through the rest of the trilogy. Maybe later on down the line we will get into whether or not this was a good and/or justified choice.

Boro, thanks for clearing that up. I haven't seen the movie in a while, so I can't speak to it directly, except to say that a lot of lesser Shakespearean actors get into this mannered Shakespearean delivery, which to me always has a sort of subtext that they're uncomfortable with the language. I liked Holme because his delivery was very natural, and also I think that the character of Polonius is a long-winded motormouth -- for example, his praise of brevity in his humorously long-winded speech in II.2 -- and so a sort of chatty delivery is a justifiable interpretation. Like I said I haven't seen it in a while, but he made me laugh at the time and I thought it was a memorable performance.

[The Saucepan Man]

Maybe it's just me, then. :D

But I do find myself identifying with the Hobbits in the book much more than I was able to in the film. Perhaps that's down to the perspective. The book story is told largely from the PoV of the Hobbits, as if they are relating it to us, whereas we are more like detached onlookers in the film. Yes, I can identify with what happens to the characters (just as I can identify with what happens to Luke in Star Wars). But I don't feel that it's like something that a friend is telling me, and which could happen to me, as I do with the book.

As for the Shire, well it is not really how I imagined it in the book. In my mind, the Shire is a lot more like the English countryside and less like Tellytubby-land (as Mithalwen put it :D ). The Shire of the book is much more a "real" place to me than the Shire in the film. That's not to say that I don't like its film depiction. It works well on film. It's just not the "real" Shire to me. :rolleyes:

[Mister Underhill]

An interesting point about perspective. It occurs to me that the real point-of-view character for this sequence is... Gandalf! He's in every scene, and we identify with the "off" things he hears and reacts to about Bilbo and his Ring, because he knows, or at least suspects, what we know -- that Bilbo's ring is the Ring.

It's interesting how slippery Jackson's grip on POV is this early in the film: Galadriel narrates the prologue, Bilbo tells us about the Shire, Gandalf's POV dominates most of the rest of the scenes up to this point, though we also have a few Frodo-POV scenes to warn us that he will be an important character.

And I get your point about the look of the Shire. My own Shire isn't quite so bustling with activity, nor so sun-drenched.

[The Saucepan Man]

It's interesting how slippery Jackson's grip on POV is this early in the film ...But isn't it the case that most films don't really have a PoV? Yes, there are those which have narration from the main character and are filmed almost entirely from his or her perspective. But they are in the minority. Most films, particularly action films, simply treat the viewers as onlookers. Jackson could have chosen to tell the tale from the perspective of one or a few characters. But that would have been a different film and not necessarily a better one. I don't think that the lack of PoV per se harms the film in any serious way. Although it may give rise to other issues which would be interesting to explore as the discussion continues.

[Mister Underhill]

I don't know -- I think even a successful ensemble film has to pay close attention to POV within its various storylines. And your typical action movie doesn't have nearly so many important characters to handle. But leave that alone for now. I think it's interesting simply on the basis that the book is deliberately written from a very limited, hobbit point-of-view. I'm not arguing yet that Jackson's more omniscient point-of-view is necessarily good or bad -- just making an observation that we're a bit all over the map POV-wise so far, and wondering how this affects movie watchers who are fans of the books. Is this the reason, or one of the reasons, why you don't identify so closely with the hobbit characters?

EDIT: That's sort of a rhetorical question that you need not answer. :)

EDIT 2: Guess I hit "reply" before I'd really thought this one through. I'd also like to point out that I'm not saying that a limited point-of-view is better or worse than an omniscient point-of-view, just pointing out that it's an important choice, and different choices produce different effects in the audience. Hence, a skilled filmmaker will deliberately employ a POV, or shift POVs, to produce desired effects on the audience, whereas a sloppy shifting of POV may produce unintended effects. I can't say whether I'd argue one way or another in Jackson's case yet, just, again, making an observation. How does Jackson's use of POV here affect the storyline?

Erm, rhetorical question again...

[alatar]

I must say that I'm very surprised that persons do not find PJ's presentation of the Shire to be the spot-on perfect paradise that I do - and you know how much I complement PJ! One note, though I have a black thumb when it comes to plants, it would seem to me that the smaller gardens should be a bit more orderly and less looking like they were dropped amongst patches of weeds/grasses. And that one hobbit looked as it that were the first in which he/she used a hoe.

And I've never considered that it was an urban vs burb versus rural thing - green grass is green grass.

And regarding the POV: is the reason that we may be jaded to PJ's mixed narration/POV is that the books give us more time to get into one POV whereas the movie, by necessity perhaps, flits around a bit. Just think if the movie were limited to one perspective, and it was one that didn't hook you? You'd be sitting in the theater wondering why everyone else was mezmerized while you had the time to look around at their faces.

[Mister Underhill]

I'm not even suggesting that an extremely limited POV is called for, but it's interesting to imagine the alternatives.

For instance, say we didn't have the Prologue, or even Bilbo's introduction to the Shire. We start with Frodo. He's taking a walk around the Shire, so we still get an idea of hobbit-life and what the Shire is like; also, we start to get the idea that Frodo is a bit different than these simple rustic folk.

Then here comes Gandalf.

Frodo jumps in his cart, their dialogue is much the same, except now we focus on Frodo's reactions to Gandalf. Frodo mentions Bilbo's weirdness, sees Gandalf's troubled reaction, presses him on it -- but Gandalf is reticent. "Fine, keep your secrets!" or whatever the dialogue is.

At Bag End, Bilbo and Gandalf greet. Now, when Gandalf gives his "haven't aged a day" line, Frodo is there -- and he takes note of Gandalf's slightly puzzled/troubled reaction. Gandalf wanders off to supervise party/fireworks preparation or something. Inside Bag End, Frodo and Bilbo have a scene that conveys much the same information as the Gandalf/Bilbo scene, but instead it's from Frodo's point-of-view, reacting to Bilbo's "butter scraped over too much bread" line. Certain things are starting to seem strange to him, especially after Gandalf's reactions and mysterious silence...

And so on. You see? So far things aren't too far different in terms of the sheer plot information in each scene, but the choice to focus on Frodo as the POV character shifts the story a bit, has a different effect on the audience.

[The Saucepan Man]

I must say that I'm very surprised that persons do not find PJ's presentation of the Shire to be the spot-on perfect paradise that I do ...I think that's probably why it doesn't quite ring precisely true with me. The Shire should be a "working" place, a place where Hobbits live out their everyday lives. Jackson's Shire is almost too perfect ...

But I'm really being nitpicky here. I cannot deny that I was delighted to see it there on screen the first time that I saw the film.

What's this? Alatar defending the film while I pick holes in it! What is the world coming to ...? :eek: ;)

For instance, say we didn't have the Prologue, or even Bilbo's introduction to the Shire.Fine, but that's going to require a lot of exposition in the dialogue between characters. Jackson chose (or perhaps just instinctively followed) the course likely to appeal to the greatest number of people. Perhaps he did take the easy option, but who can blame him?

Hmm, I think that might become a common refrain from me as this discussion develops ... :D

[Mister Underhill]

but that's going to require a lot of exposition in the dialogue between charactersNot necessarily. You could shift the exposition to later sequences, as Tolkien did (you've saved 8 or 9 minutes by starting with Frodo in my hypothetical which can be used elsewhere). I'm not saying "This is the way it should have been done!", just thinking about a way it could have been done.

Rather than get into a "He took the easy option!"/"Who can blame him?" argument, which is rather played out by now, I'm more interested in looking at what the implications of Jackson's choices are, and in some cases how they might have been different. Isn't that what this discussion is for? Not just as a scene-by-scene rehash of the "Jackson did a great job!"/"This part doesn't match the books!" argument.

I know we're all used to capturing a position and then holding it against all attackers, and I am historically as guilty of that as anyone, but I hope we can investigate how the films might have been different without always arousing counter-attacks from Jackson defenders.

[The Saucepan Man]

Rather than get into a "He took the easy option!"/"Who can blame him?" argument, which is rather played out by now, I'm more interested in looking at what the implications of Jackson's choices are, and in some cases how they might have been different.I don't disagree, although I think that this may be difficult, since any suggested alternatives will need to be thought through. Like Jackson's own changes, they will have knock on effects, possibly throughout the trilogy. For example, omitting the Prologue would fundamentally affect the (non-book) audience's attitude to, and relationship with, the Ring. "What's all this fuss about a little Ring" might be one reaction without having seen it's history and past "deeds". The exposition could be inserted by "flashback" early on, say in Gandalf's discussion with Frodo (as in the book), but what effect would this have on the pacing?

I am most certainly not planning on defending the films for the sake of it. But, if we are to look at why Jackson made the choices that he did, we have to take into account all of the factors influencing his decisions. And "played out" though the argument may be, mass marketability is undoubtedly a major factor.

[Mister Underhill]

I just don't think there's only one way to "mass marketability". Adaptation is an art, not a mathematical proof.

And you're right that there are obviously future implications to be thought through for any particular approach. Maybe by going down some roads, we will see why the filmmakers ultimately didn't take them. In the case of my hypothetical, you trade the exposition up front for a more mysterious build-up of the Ring. Why does Gandalf seem so unnerved by it? Why does Bilbo have such a hard time giving it up? And who are these dudes in the black cloaks who are sniffing around? Eventually you get the whole story. This is how it works in the book, and it doesn't seem to have hurt Tolkien's mass-appeal.

I think we can stipulate that Jackson's adaptation demonstrably has mass-appeal because his movies made a boatload of money. And naturally there were constraints governing some of the choices he made, and these are worth discussing. But just remember that every time you defend one of Jackson's choices based solely on mass-appeal or cite his box office returns as argument-ending proof of his genius, a skwerl dies. Don't be a skwerl-killer.

[The Saucepan Man]

But just remember that every time you defend one of Jackson's choices based solely on mass-appeal or cite his box office returns as argument-ending proof of his genius, a skwerl dies. Don't be a skwerl-killer.Aw! Whyd'ya have to go and take away all my arguments so early on ... ;)

Seriously, I'm not planning on defending any of Jackson's decisions based solely on mass-appeal. I'm just saying that it's a factor in his decision-making. And I am keen to make sure that we keep in mind that these films were made for a wider audience than solely pre-existing fans of the books.

Nor am I suggesting that a delayed exposition wouldn't necessarily work. My inclination is that film audiences, particularly today, have less patience than book readers, at least when it comes to setting up the basis for the story. Or, to put it another way, film-makers have less leeway, in terms of timing and audience expectation, than authors. But I'm willing to suspend judgement and see how it works out (if you're willing to follow it through ;) ).

Of course, any suggested alternative structures are unproven, whereas Jackson's decisions are proven at the box-office ... :p

*Hark, is that a skwerl I hear thudding to the ground?*

[Boromir88]

As I'm sure you all know that I'm maybe one of the most critical people when it comes to the films. I will say that even as a book fan, I happened to like the Prologue. And do not think it would work well later on in the movies, or cut out and replaced with some more indepth information.

The Prologue gets you introduced to the story of the Ring and the set up. I think if you keep it as a narrative (atleast for me) it wouldn't be as interesting. I mean having Gandalf and Frodo (or even Bilbo if they wanted to) sit in Bag End and talk replay history through dialogue wouldn't be as eye-catching. Unless they wanted to use flashbacks sort of interspliced with the dialogue?

Why does Gandalf seem so unnerved by it? Why does Bilbo have such a hard time giving it up? And who are these dudes in the black cloaks who are sniffing around?
I actually think most of these are pretty well answered early on. Maybe because I've read the book prior to the movies, but I thought the movies answered these pretty well. Atleast the first two questions, maybe not the Nazgul.

We see (through the prologue actually) the corruption the Ring has. We see it wiht Isildur, and Gollum (There it consumed him) right off the bat. Then Bilbo has trouble giving it up. I do wish that they would have had some mention of Bilbo saying the Ring kept slipping off his finger. Because, I think this is rather an important aspect of the ring. It can change sizes (a question I've heard alot...does the Ring change sizes? Why?)

And as to Gandalf being unnerved by it is pretty well shown with his reaction to Bilbo "disappearing" at the party. He knows something's up with that Ring, then we delve further into when he says "It's been called that before, but not by you." So, he obviously feels this is the One Ring and he goes to read Isildur's scroll to get a confirmation. (Though that's not til the next scene I think).

[Mister Underhill]

I actually think most of these are pretty well answered early on. Maybe because I've read the book prior to the movies, but I thought the movies answered these pretty well. Atleast the first two questions, maybe not the Nazgul.
Quite right, Boro -- and you've done a proper job of explaining how the film answers these things. I was just wondering how it might work in a scenario where the audience wasn't given the answers to these questions right off the bat. Because as it stands now, we already know the Ring is the Ring, we know it's bad news, we've learned that it's the creation of the Big Bad Dude in Black Armor -- we spend the good part of this sequence waiting for Gandalf to start to catch up to what we already know.

On the other hand, the prologue arguably works in the sense that we know that this evil thing is in the Shire and are anticipating, "What is going to happen in this idyllic, peaceful place because the Ring is there?" It's hard for me to judge one solution against the other objectively because I can't recreate being a movie-goer seeing the story unfold for the first time Jackson-style.

Whether you keep the prologue or not, though, I was simply noting ways in which the sequence might have been presented more from Frodo's point-of-view rather than Gandalf's. Just sort of wondering what motivated that choice, and how it impacts the story as a whole, and what effect a different approach might have had.

And any way you slice it, you're absolutely right that you don't give the Ring's history by having two characters sitting and chatting about it. But flashbacks with Gandalf (and maybe Elrond too) as narrator are interesting to think about.
Or, to put it another way, film-makers have less leeway, in terms of timing and audience expectation, than authors. I tend to agree with this, but I still don't see how it necessarily militates for Jackson's solution. In fact, conventional moviemaking wisdom dictates that you don't start a movie with ten minutes of solid exposition, so in a way I see Jackson actually bucking a traditional "mass-appeal" dictum with his approach.

Interesting side note: in ancient Greece, a character named Prologue would come onstage and simply tell the audience the information they needed to know in order to understand and become emotionally involved in the play.

[radagastly]

Mister Undrhill:

It's interesting how slippery Jackson's grip on POV is this early in the film: Galadriel narrates the prologue, Bilbo tells us about the Shire, Gandalf's POV dominates most of the rest of the scenes up to this point, though we also have a few Frodo-POV scenes to warn us that he will be an important character.

I'm not so sure he loses his grip, so much as setting up the shifting of POV that we inevitably encounter in TT and RotK. He discusses POV in the commentary during the prologue (the POV is from the Ring's perspective), so he's not unaware, or, I think, out of control. I think the shifting is deliberate, at least in the EE.

I don't know -- I think even a successful ensemble film has to pay close attention to POV within its various storylines. And your typical action movie doesn't have nearly so many important characters to handle. But leave that alone for now. I think it's interesting simply on the basis that the book is deliberately written from a very limited, hobbit point-of-view. I'm not arguing yet that Jackson's more omniscient point-of-view is necessarily good or bad -- just making an observation that we're a bit all over the map POV-wise so far, and wondering how this affects movie watchers who are fans of the books. Is this the reason, or one of the reasons, why you don't identify so closely with the hobbit characters?

An omniscient POV tends to distance the viewer, a handy technique, if that's what you want. Very effective in the middle of a film, if it's an action scene, where you want to see everything going on, enjoy the 'eye candy'. It's also the film version of literary exposition short of the old mathom of the one-sided phone conversation, where the speaker repeats everything out loud from the other end of the dialoque. Phones were (clearly) not available in the Shire for this purpose. Not so good at the beginning, though, where you want to grab the audience. The audience needs to relate to someone. I think one of the issues here is that in the theatrical version, our introduction to the Shire is strictly from Gandalf's POV, whereas in the EE, PJ took advantage of the "Concerning Hobbits" narration already done by Ian Holm, inherently shifting the POV to Bilbo at the outset. I think it may have been been a mistake, to start the story from Gandalf's POV, as this story is, ultimately, the story of the end of the Ring, and of the Elves from the perspective of the Hobbits. He should never have decided to tell this part of the story from Gandalf's POV. We should have been more related to at least one of the Hobbits, preferably Frodo. I don't think anyone would argue that he is the hero of the next twelve hours.

For instance, say we didn't have the Prologue, or even Bilbo's introduction to the Shire. We start with Frodo. He's taking a walk around the Shire, so we still get an idea of hobbit-life and what the Shire is like; also, we start to get the idea that Frodo is a bit different than these simple rustic folk.

Then here comes Gandalf.

Frodo jumps in his cart, their dialogue is much the same, except now we focus on Frodo's reactions to Gandalf. Frodo mentions Bilbo's weirdness, sees Gandalf's troubled reaction, presses him on it -- but Gandalf is reticent. "Fine, keep your secrets!" or whatever the dialogue is.

At Bag End, Bilbo and Gandalf greet. Now, when Gandalf gives his "haven't aged a day" line, Frodo is there -- and he takes note of Gandalf's slightly puzzled/troubled reaction. Gandalf wanders off to supervise party/fireworks preparation or something. Inside Bag End, Frodo and Bilbo have a scene that conveys much the same information as the Gandalf/Bilbo scene, but instead it's from Frodo's point-of-view, reacting to Bilbo's "butter scraped over too much bread" line. Certain things are starting to seem strange to him, especially after Gandalf's reactions and mysterious silence...

You should have gotten the Oscar, instead of PJ, Fran, Phillippa. In fact, they say in the commentary that they had abandoned the idea of a prologue until New Line told them they needed one (two minutes long, no longer!). Keeping that in mind, the theatrical version (at least) would have started with the shot of Frodo reading under a tree. That would have at least been close to your version.

Saucepan Man:
Fine, but that's going to require a lot of exposition in the dialogue between characters. Jackson chose (or perhaps just instinctively followed) the course likely to appeal to the greatest number of people. Perhaps he did take the easy option, but who can blame him?

You're probably right, but remember that the best films reqire NO dalogue at all. It should only enhance the experience. Otherwise, leave it out, or at least make it beautiful. It will come up that I miss much of Tolkien's poetry in the film. Just because the words are so beautifully constructed. Despite the fact that I am making a real effort to look at these films AS FILMS, apart from the books that I have grown to love over the many years. Tolkien is an incredible poet, aside from everything else, and I wanted more. More on that as we come to the places where it's missing, though, as I say, I'm trying to approach this apart from the books. My best efforts will inevitably fall short. I'm trying to keep it in mind though.

[Boromir88]

Mr. Underhill, should be pretty interesting as to how it would work. As Sauce said the majority of movies are made where the audience are bystandards, just basically watching behind a clear wall. They see everything that goes on. There's not many movies that try to get the audience to see from one perspective, and see what one person sees.

The last movie I saw kind of like this limitted omniscient, not knowing everything, it was quite a while ago. It was a Japanese movie made in the 30's (forget the name I'll have to see if I can think of it).

But, basically, a murder happens. The audience doesn't see the murder. It starts out with a merchant who finds a priest and says he's got a story to tell him that he saw and witnessed in the city. So, we're hearing the story not directly from the people involved, but from someone who witnessed the "trial." And as an audience we don't know what happened, what we're hearing is right, we just simply hear a story from this man telling a priest.

The merchant goes on to tell us that a beautiful wife and her husband were travelling through the woods and a bandit kidnapped the wife and killed the husband (allegedly). It continues to give us 3 difference stories of the event (from the three people who were involved). The wife who says the bandit murdered her husband and kidnapped her. The Bandit who says the wife killed her husband, because she fell in love with him and the only way to be with him was to be free from her husband. And a poor fisherman that didn't see what actually happened, but remembers seeing the girl and the bandit.

So we get the stories from the 3 perspectives (actually two) and we never know what's the truth, we're sort of left to guess who to believe. It was actually a very good movie, I'll see if I can remember it. But, I think it's a good example of the audience only knowing what's told through the characters, we only know what the merchant has passed down to the priest.

Now, I wonder if LOTR would be more effective this way. Rather interesting to think of. I think it's easier to write a book based on one or two different POV's, and follow one person's train of thought, but as far as making a movie, I think it's a lot more difficult. However, I think it can be done and if done properly could be quite successful.

[radagastly]

Boromir88:
So we get the stories from the 3 perspectives (actually two) and we never know what's the truth, we're sort of left to guess who to believe.

Sounds like the Kurasawa film "Roshomon." a masterpiece, though I haven't seen it in many, many years. Could that be it?

Don't want to get sidetracked though, from the discussion at hand. Just wondering. . .

[Boromir88]

It is Roshoman radagast, that's certainly is it. Great movie I too haven't seen it in a very long time. I can't remember the exact role or the actual ending of it (for it has nothing to do with the murder) but a lesson to the audience. But, basically the whole movie is the murder story.

Back on track I wanted to talk about something you said. I was going to edit my post, but since you have responded...
I'm not so sure he loses his grip, so much as setting up the shifting of POV that we inevitably encounter in TT and RotK. He discusses POV in the commentary during the prologue (the POV is from the Ring's perspective), so he's not unaware, or, I think, out of control. I think the shifting is deliberate, at least in the EE.
That certainly appears to be the approach. I think while Tolkien the Ring is the "main plot" in the books, it's not his main theme or his focus. His focus is on friendship, and the maturity of the Hobbits from the beginning to the end. So, there's a story after the destruction of the Ring, and Tolkien doesn't focus his story on the Ring's POV, but those involved in the story of the Ring. (Hope that's not going in too many circles).

Where Jackson took the approach of narrowing it down to making the Ring the focus. So, after the Ring's destruction, the story concludes, and through the movies he makes the Ring the primary POV.

[alatar]

Just a quick quip: To me, the problem with the single POV, whether it's the Ring, Frodo, Gandalf, whomever, is that one tends to the see the movie in a different light. It's like that "Blair Witch Project" film (didn't see all of it, though my wife did) where the different way of telling the story becomes the story. No one really cared how much sense the movie made (my wife, expecting a thriller, found it to be silly) because it was "different."

PJ may have wanted to not let that become the story - especially in terms of 'press' and 'word of mouth' - as that may have made the second and third movies more difficult ("Hey, we had a single limited POV in FotR...where's it at in TTT?"). Plus, the multiple POV allows him to introduce more characters in a leap frog-like fashion.

Plus all of that flitting around is perfect for all of us with 15 second attention spans...;)

[Mister Underhill]

I don't mean to suggest that I think the movies would work better -- or that it would even be possible to tell the story -- from a very severely limited, single POV.

Clearly we need to be able to move around to follow the diverging storylines. I don't want to hijack this thread anymore than I already have -- maybe I can just sum up by saying that in any given scene or sequence the filmmakers must choose a point of view, and it's interesting to me that so far, the strongest POV character is Gandalf. I'll try to wait for future sequences to analyze how or if this choice significantly impacts the effect of the narrative.

EDIT: Just wanted to add a thought to illustrate the concept I'm trying to get across: Jackson limits his POV in at least one important way -- we never cut to scenes of Sauron in Barad-dûr, laying his plans for war or to get back the Ring or whatever. On the other hand, he opts for a less restricted POV than Tolkien does by having scenes of Saruman laying his plans, hatching orcs, giving speeches to his troops, etc., and in RotK by having scenes from the POV of Gothmog and his attacking Orc legions.

It'll be interesting later on to look at the effects of these choices. What is gained by these new scenes? What is lost? And so on.

[Lathriel]

I never thought about the Point of View in these movies and I don't feel that the movies take on a particular point of view at all. I all seems to be in Third peron (forgot the term for all-knowing,blushes) to me. (That is if the movie was written down into a book, it would probably turn into third person)

I did like the shire and it didn't seem artificial to me. I haven't seen the teletubbies on t.v but from the pictures I have seen they don't remind me of the Shire at all.

I LOVE the fireworks because I am an absolute firework nut. The smoke rings are cool and I actually never saw Sam as a skinny Hobbit.

[Essex]

I think the major issue Jackson has to deal with in adapting the books is not the POV issue, but the NARRATION issue. A lot of detail (especially exposition) is dealt with by Tolkien using a narrator’s voice.

Jackons does not use this in his films (except at the Prologue) – I personally don’t think narration works in films, and only a few try it – for example, how bad was the original version of Bladerunner compared with the ‘director’s cut’? ie the cinematic release had Ford narrating over it, and the director’s cut (without the narration) is far superior in my opinion.

Anyway, to get to my point, how Jackson deals with not having a narrator (and some other issues I'll point to) can be summed up here.
Someone earlier pointed out that if Bilbo hadn’t seen Gandalf in years, then why did the children know it was Gandalf? I think we already have been given a decent enough answer for this (is I think it boils down to Gandalf being a ‘legend’ amongst hobbits, and maybe something they tell their children/grandchildren about). Anyway, the reason we have this issue is that in the book, it is not Bilbo who Gandalf says this to but Frodo.

Film: Good to see you. One hundred and eleven years old, who would believe it? You haven't aged a dayNow, we have the book: Time wore on, but it seemed to have little effect on Mr. Baggins. At ninety he was much the same as at fifty. At ninety-nine they began to call him well-preserved, but unchanged would have been nearer the mark and 'Ah well eh? You look the same as ever, Frodo!'
Gandalf meets back with Frodo after Bilbo had left Bag End. Notice Gandalf looks at Frodo, not Bilbo and sees that he hadn’t changed after coming back to the Shire after a period of 9 years of absence. Therefore Jackson uses this scene to have Gandalf explain to the audience how old Bilbo is and that he hasn’t aged. Tolkien describes this in FOTR.

This is an issue Jackson has throughout the films, and this is why I can forgive him the changes. (To add to this, Jackson couldn't have Frodo in this scene to show the 9 and 12 year gaps in seing Gandalf - how could he make the hobbits look 12 years younger in the party scenes? - another reason for a film to be different to a book)

Other examples (and also a strange turn around about Tea and wine!):(Bilbo): Tea? Or maybe something a little stronger. I've got a couple of bottles of the old winyard left. 1296. Very good year. Almost as old as I am. It was laid down by my father. (taken from Tolkien’s description of what Rory Brandybuck receives as a parting gift from Bilbo)

Gandalf: Just tea, thank you. And THIS is the ‘turn around’ I mean – from The Hobbit, and Bilbo offers Gandalf tea, and get’s the reply: What’s that? Tea! No thank you! A little red wine, I think, for me – So our Movie Gandalf doesn’t like alcohol? Thank God he kept his pipe!!!!

To surmise, the precise moment I DEFINITLEY knew we we’re in good hands for these films was when we see Gandalf pick up the old map from the Hobbit – that attention to detail was marvellous – but to add to this listen very carefully you’ll hear Bilbo in the background saying: You caught me a bit unprepared, I'm afraid. We’ve only got some chicken and a bit of pickle…There’s some cheese. Oh no, that won’t do. We’ve got raspberry jam, an apple tart. But not much for afters. Oh no, we’re all right. I’ve just found some sponge cake. – paraphrased from the same scene I’ve mentioned in the Hobbit where Bilbo is besieged by Gandalf and the Dwarves What’s that? Tea! No thank you! A little red wine, I think, for me” (Gandalf) “And for me” “And raspberry jam and apple-tart” (Bifur) “and mince-pies and cheese” “And pork-pie and salad” (Bombur)“And more cakes - and ale - and coffee, if you don’t mind” (Dwarves) “Put on a few eggs, there’s a good fellow!”It’s little details like this that show the love and dedication the movie makers have for this film.

[Holbytlass]

It’s little details like this that show the love and dedication the movie makers have for this film.
I'm not going to get into the debate of POV/narration, for me what was done worked.

I do like The Shire, and its inhabitants and how they were portrayed. A bit over-the-top but I think that is to establish very cleary that when the 4 hobbits find themselves later on this quest and doing what they came to do, that it is so out of nature and character for a hobbit to do those things. Out of the nine companions of the Fellowship, the 4 hobbits changed and grew the most.

Of this sequence, I like the theatre version better than the extended. It added unneccessarily to what was already established, hobbits are simple- carefree kind of people. Except I did like the scene where Bilbo can't find the ring. Now that "addict" moment really showed how strong the attachment to the ring is and makes more of an understanding why it was so hard for Bilbo to give it up.


There have been issues raised about the dumbing down of Pippin and in particular Merry, that I'd like to address. In terms of book to movie, in the book at the time of the party, Bilbo is 111, Frodo is 33, Pippin is 17, Merry is 18(I think) and Sam is a few years older (like early 20's) then the Frodo and company leave The Shire for Rivendell 17 years later making Frodo- 50, Pippin-32 and so forth.

Since P.J. decided not portray the 17 years difference and since there really is no age given the hobbits (that I can recall), the only thing we have to go on is that Sam is old enough to get married (in the end), Frodo is "grown" since he's left on his own, and Merry and Pippin are younger than Frod and Sam.

What's my point? I think Merry and Pippin weren't dumbed down, just shown how they probably did behave in their late teen years.

[Kath]

I haven't read this through properly yet as I have to go to bed but I just wanted to pick up on one point before I forgot it. When Bilbo is talking about the Hobbit's of the Shire and gently insulting their ways and habits, it reminds me so much of the beginning of FotR when he is giving away special presents to people, and there are little notes with each that gently jibe in a similar way. That was a nice touch by PJ if he intended it, and good anyway even if he didn't.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I'm greatly enjoying these discussions, reading every post and attempting to keep up and watch the sequences in order to contribute. Sometimes, as in this case, I may be a bit late; therefore my comments will be rather random, in hopes of not repeating too much which has already been said.

I like the beginning scene, with Bilbo in his study, beginning to write down the story. It's a nice link to Sam's later speech about living in a story. However, the title and the story he begins do not match! "There and Back Again" is The Hobbit; "Concerning Hobbits" is in LotR. I know, Jackson could hardly show him writing a story called "The Lord of the Rings", since he doesn't yet know what will happen. Still, it's a minor but interesting discrepancy for book readers to note.

Gandalf's remarks about a wizard arriving precisely when he means to are enjoyable - one of the instances where movie dialogue can hold up to book dialogue. I felt more than just the humor of the remark, though - it's a foreshadowing of his failure to arrive on time to meet the hobbits. Even a wizard cannot control all circumstances of his life.

We see an annoying number of "Ring in Frodo's hand" shots throughout the movie, so I found it refreshing that Jackson did not show the Ring in Bilbo's hand in the study, when he finds it. It is not openly shown until after the birthday party.

[Lathriel]

We forgot to talk about one lovely line that Holm delivers so well along with gestures. "I like less then half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less then half of you half as well as you deserve." I love that line also because you can see that only Gandalf and Frodo understand what he means. Also the hand gestures are awesome since they illustrate the roundabout way of the quote as Holm turns his hand in a circle and finishes by pointing to the hobbits.
I really like the birthday speech because they kept it so close to the book. I also have to laugh at the smoke that passes behind Holm because that is the cake that caught on fire.

[doug*platypus]

This thread hasn't been posted on for a year! Yet it hasn't aged a day...

Overall I really enjoyed the look of The Shire, although I had imagined in my own mind that the area around Bag End, at least, would be more built up, with more hobbit holes and less green pasture. I'm grateful that PJ chose to show us quite a few shots of The Shire. I believe it's important to establish this out of the way, idyllic, peaceful part of the countryside, to show what the forces of good were really fighting for. And also to show the rustic background which the hobbits sprang from, so that we can see how they grow in their worldliness and sophistication as the trilogy proceeds.

The interior of Bag End itself was simply marvellous. Every detail was lovingly crafted, from the round door (which they made entirely believable and acceptable, no mean feat IMHO) to Thorin's map.

I don't particularly like the meeting between Gandalf and Frodo. It seems a little forced, to me, especially the maniacal laughter at something which wasn't really all that funny. I can understand PJ wanting to include it to establish that the two had a relationship, but I think that the beginning of the movie would have been just as well without it. For me, the story really begins when we see an old man in a battered hat driving a cart up to Bag End. That would have been a more mysterious and moody opening. Remember that the wizard is one of the most dangerous people in Middle Earth. He loves the hobbits, but I think that Frodo giving him a big soppy hug was a little misplaced, and as for telling him he was late, well downright rude!

All of the scenes involving Bilbo and Gandalf together were absolute gold! McKellan and Holm are both brilliant actors, and put on great performances. "You haven't aged a day" was well done; a hint of something sinister to those familiar with the books (although Bilbo did look significantly older than the 50 year old who discovered the Ring in the prologue). "You want It for yourself!" was just great! Well acted out with the hand movements and all... Bilbo was really riled up!

PJ and co cannot be praised enough for pulling off the perspective shots near flawlessly. The respective sizes of Gandalf and the hobbits were well established and faithfully kept in order.

I enjoyed the party scenes, and thought that Bilbo's disappearance was handled well. It came off as a real surprise! Even to Gandalf, which was not going by the book, but this worked quite well.

I liked the way that the Ring was made into a living character, with Its very own close ups, and even speech?! Although I thought that seeing the Red Eye so early on in the movie was a bit much.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I recently had the privilege of visiting New Zealand and took advantage of the opportunity to go to Matamata to see the remnants of the Hobbiton movie location. Even with only the skeleton hobbit holes left for seeing, it was a remarkable sight! The whole sheep farm on which it is located is huge, and so far from any signs of civilization that it really does feel like being in another world. Most of all I was impressed by the Party Tree - it's wonderful, very large and beautiful.

Here's a picture of the hill as it looks now:

http://x56.xanga.com/094d37032173488458625/m61186493.jpg

As you can guess, the question of legal rights was an obstacle that needed to be overcome for the owner of the farm; he is not allowed to restore any doors, windows, etc., but only to keep the current state of the leftover film location as it is. Should a Hobbit movie be made, I can imagine that it could easily be rebuilt.

Here's the Party Tree, taken from the window of Bag End:
http://xbf.xanga.com/07fd22021663488458376/m61186293.jpg
And finally, here's your truly, stepping on the very stones upon which Gandalf stood when he knocked on the door!

http://x4b.xanga.com/471d573a0963688457995/m61185982.jpg

It was a truly awesome experience for me and I encourage anyone who has the chance to go there!

[Mister Underhill]

Wow, Esty, what an adventure! I'm as envious as a Sackville-Baggins of your "stay" in Bag-End. I'd never really thought about it before, but it's interesting to see that the Hobbiton exteriors are built to "little person" scale. I reckon they must have used little people as Shire extras in those wide shots. Thanks for sharing those pics.

[Sir Kohran]

Is that brilliant tree still standing? Ever since seeing it on the cover to Ringers: Lord of The Fans, I've wanted to go and see it. I love how the branches are so thick and well-grown they form a complete circle (rather like the Ring itself, actually).

Thanks for the pics.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Yes, the Party Tree is still standing, alive and well. Actually, the owners had wanted to cut it down before the site was chosen for filming - what luck that they didn't get around to it! It's magnificent and fascinating, well worth the entry fee all by itself.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Does my first viewing of Sam, the sidekick hero, have to be of him staring amazed at a potted flower?

Hasn't anyone else noticed that the flower Sam is planting here is in fact nicotiana, flowering tobacco (i.e. pipeweed?)

[ninja91]

I love the scene where it shows Sam looking at the plant. They have a passion for things that grow, and just because he has done it many times before means nothing to the obvious joy he gets from his work. It shows a very gentle Sam, which later in the movies has a foil as he fights Shelob.

[alatar]

Hasn't anyone else noticed that the flower Sam is planting here is in fact nicotiana, flowering tobacco (i.e. pipeweed?)
How do we know this? I thought that it was just some garden-variety geranium.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Another small think I'd like to point out, several times Jackson uses Chapters from the book as lines in the movie. We hear one basically right off the bat when Gandalf arrives "A long expected Party." And shortly after Bilbo leaves there's "Riddles in the Dark" which I think is a chapter in The Hobbit...right? Anyway, I just thought that was neat.

And "A Shortcut To Mushrooms"

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Aw! Whyd'ya have to go and take away all my arguments so early on ... ;)

Seriously, I'm not planning on defending any of Jackson's decisions based solely on mass-appeal. I'm just saying that it's a factor in his decision-making. And I am keen to make sure that we keep in mind that these films were made for a wider audience than solely pre-existing fans of the books. [/I]*

Quite right, I had not read the books before I saw the movies, but after.
And it's not fair that pre movie Tolkien fanatics get to nag on ones (like me) who didn't know how wonderful LOTR was until Peter Jackson came out with the films.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

I recently had the privilege of visiting New Zealand and took advantage of the opportunity to go to Matamata to see the remnants of the Hobbiton movie location. Even with only the skeleton hobbit holes left for seeing, it was a remarkable sight! The whole sheep farm on which it is located is huge, and so far from any signs of civilization that it really does feel like being in another world. Most of all I was impressed by the Party Tree - it's wonderful, very large and beautiful.

It was a truly awesome experience for me and I encourage anyone who has the chance to go there!

Man I wish I could go there, I cant believe you saw in person, the Bag-End that the Sackville-Bagginses wanted to take for their own.(no wonder they wanted it, in person) yeah I have it on DVD but I cant go in it.

[sassyfriend]

Love Bag end it is so pretty! One place i would love to live at!