Serving animals in HOBBIT film

[Sauron the White]

Should there be the serving animals from the chapter Queer Lodgings in an eventual HOBBIT film? And I mean exactly as JRRT wrote that scene.

It is my strong feeling that the serving animals are the Tom Bombadil of THE HOBBIT. They would be the kiss of death in a movie reagardless of who directed it but especially if it is in any way serious. Plus, the recent memory of the talking animals in NARNIA, it would just be too much for the audience.

Feelings and opinions?

[Mithalwen]

If I were filming the Hobbit, as a single film especially (and I appreciate this isn't what is going to happen since it will be same old same old with PJ ). I would ditch Beorn.

It doesn't really advance the plot, doesn't really fit into the wider story and has no major consequences. In a story designed to be read in installments to children it works as a reprise of the arrival of the dwarves at bag end, and if the Hobbit was to be done as a Sunday teatime serial (as theBBC did the Narnia stories when I was a child) I might well keep it- though t I am little fonder of Beorn than Bombadil whom I loathe.

However even if the Hobbit is done as a childrens film, I would lose it ... I think it would be visually rather dull and while it is necessary to have light interrupting the shade to stop it getting too scary for tinies, in this case the Eagle rescue serves the purpose. I would have the Eagles dump them (though maybe not Gandalf) at the edge of Mirkwood.

Beorn's role at the battle of five armies was hardly significant and I never understood why, having been an Elffriend by the Elvenking, and Gandalf as companion going through Mirkwood was avoided.... it is inconceivable that the Woodelves would not have given them hospitality and ensured their safe passage.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Mith, I can't agree that Beorn's presence was insignificant- he turned the tide at the Bo5A, crushing Bolg and his bodyguard just as Thorin's charge had prtered out.

More to the point, Beorn is a tremendous addition to the 'uncanniness' of Middle-earth, and the weight of its history (not that PJ will ever pick up on that). In any event, if this thing actually does come out in 2 movies there's no need as there was with LR to cut original material- instead a lot of padding will be added, which is what I chiefly dread. I envision McKellen, Lee, Weaving and Blanchett engaging in gang-wizard-fu against Sauron (perhaps they'll psychically kick the eyeball around like a soccer ball.....)

[Meriadoc1961]

The animals themselves did not talk in Beorn's house, HE talked to them in their language. Yes, they were intelligent, but I see nothing in having them in the movie in Beorn's house that would be a distraction.

The Eagles talk, and so do the old raven and the spiders in the book. (The thrush speaks, but only Bard can understand him, being of the line of Girion, and the wolves speak in their language that is understood by both Gandalf and the goblins.) Are we not going to have them talk in this movie as well?

Merry

[Folwren]

Why would the recent memory of Narnia ruin it for the audience? It wasn't the animals that made the movie not as good as it could have been - it was that director's deviation from the book - just like the LotR wasn't as good as it could have been, not because of Elijah Wood's acting of Frodo, but because Jackson strayed from the book.

I think Beorn belongs in the story and movie. And if you have Beorn, you can't very well not have his animals, can you? I think the serving animals would be wonderful. They shouldn't necessarily be the center of attention for thirty seconds or whatever, but I think it'd be cool to have Gandalf and Beorn or someone talking and in the background see the animals trotting in and out with the platters and tables.

Was it murder to the book? No. And if properly done, it won't be murder to the movie, either.

-- Folwren

[Sauron the White]

from Folwren

Why would the recent memory of Narnia ruin it for the audience? It wasn't the animals that made the movie not as good as it could have been - it was that director's deviation from the book - just like the LotR wasn't as good as it could have been, not because of Elijah Wood's acting of Frodo, but because Jackson strayed from the book.

So the LOTR films were "not as good as it could have been" if they only stayed strictly to the books? So if we had Tom Bombadil singing his cheery doggerel dressed like a bad hippie dream, then the film would have
- made more money than the $4 billion US dollars that it did ????
- won more than the 17 Academy Awards that it did ?????
- been more critically praised than the high level that it did ????

I find that extremely hard to believe since by all three areas of industry measurement they were immensely successful. There were things in the book that would have simply killed the films right in their tracks - Bombadil at the top of that list. Try to imagine a 25 minute Council of Elrond with all the various talking heads laying out the expository material for the audience as they figdeted in their chairs.

Please, lets get it through our collective heads --- a book is one thing while a film is quite another. What works in one medium does not always work in the other.

[Folwren]

I'm not arguing. It's a simple fact. Ask anyone else on the forum if the movie wouldn't have been better if he'd stuck more with the books.

EDIT: Not if he stuck EXACTLY with the book. Yes, there are parts that would have been bad for the movie. But if he had stuck at least MOSTLY with the book. None of this Frodo sending Sam away or Faramir taking Sam and Frodo to Osgilitath or Gandalf getting his staff broken by the Witch King or Aragorn not wanting to be who he was and saying stupid stuff like "I do not want that power. I have never wanted it" or Arwen's fate being bound to the Ring's or.....well, yeah, you get my point....

[Sauron the White]

Folwren
I do get your point. And I do respect your opinion on this. I do however feel that they certainly did do as you wanted and

had stuck at least MOSTLY with the book

Obviously there were changes. But the vast majority of the film came from the books. I defend the movies here but even I object to some of the changes. I still cringe with the scrubbing bubbles of the Dead Army sweeping the Pelennor clean rendering the previous scenes of the Rohirrim all in vain. I hated that. I certainly am no fan of body noise jokes or Gimli being the butt of the humor. I never would have done it that way.

But in the end they are still movies I love. Over thirty years ago I used to be in cars with others driving to conventions and fan gatherings and we used to kill time by speculating on a possible LOTR movie. I do not think any of us thought it would be as great as it was. Perfect - no. But then what is?

I am very happy to have the books to reread again and again. And I am happy to have the films to watch again and again. I have little trouble telling the difference.

[Lord Halsar]

I think that some of us are straying off topic here (no offense, I just call it as I see it).
Anywho, I do admit that I am both looking forward to, and loathing the idea of a "The Hobbit" movie. I myself doubt that the serving animals will appear in anything but the extended/uncut version (If there is one and I believe there will be). Beorn himself on the other hand, is likely to take his place(s) in it. The fact that he tore through Bolg and his men (or is the term goblins... orcs maybe?) may or may not be too great of a part for PJ to ignore (But then again, we never know who's going to do what. Hollywood has shown us that time and time again).

[Sir Kohran]

I expect Beorn will be included, if for no other reason than he makes for some great action - imagine a massive bear smashing a path through the Orc ranks and literally crushing Bolg.

However I don't think the 'talking'/serving animals should be included, for the same reason that the Elves should not sing 'Tra la la lally' - it's not only silly but inconsistent with what LOTR has established. Lets' face it, most if not all of the audience will be seeing the movie because they enjoyed the LOTR films, and therefore they will expect TH to 'fit' with that, and so that's what the director will do. And I don't think it'll be a bad thing either. I love TH as a standalone work but it just doesn't quite fit with LOTR.



The reason the Narnia movie wasn't that good was, IMO, simply because it tried to make the book into something it wasn't - the book was not meant to be a huge LOTR-style epic, but an enjoyable fairy-tale with some Christian subtext. Unfortunately the makers ignored this and tried to recreate Jackson's movies and whilst not failing, ended up with a rather average result.

[davem]

However I don't think the 'talking'/serving animals should be included, for the same reason that the Elves should not sing 'Tra la la lally' - it's not only silly but inconsistent with what LOTR has established. Lets' face it, most if not all of the audience will be seeing the movie because they enjoyed the LOTR films, and therefore they will expect TH to 'fit' with that, and so that's what the director will do. And I don't think it'll be a bad thing either. I love TH as a standalone work but it just doesn't quite fit with LOTR.


This is the point (& its also the reason that Tolkien failed to re-write TH 'in the style of LotR') - TH is a children's tale &, as such, contains much that an 'adult' tale cannot get away with. None of those things would be out of place (if handled correctly) in a children's movie, but they wouldn't work in an 'adult' movie aimed at fans of the LotR films.

But, as Tolkien realised, if you try to re-write TH in the style of LotR the whole tale collapses under a weight it was not designed to bear. Lose the whimsy, the fantastic element, the 'tra-la-la-lallying' Elves & 'cockerney' Trolls & you have a different story, because the mood, the spirit, basically the heart of the tale, will be gone.

Lose the serving animals, the talking eagles & wolves, the camp Elves & comedy trolls & you haven't got The Hobbit we know & love. TH is a fable, a fairy story for the young. This has nothing to do with 'movies & books are different media', its to do with whether greedy adults should be allowed to snatch away childrens' candy, just 'cos they're bigger than them & fancy stuffing their faces.


So if we had Tom Bombadil singing his cheery doggerel dressed like a bad hippie dream, then the film would have
- made more money than the $4 billion US dollars that it did ????
- won more than the 17 Academy Awards that it did ?????
- been more critically praised than the high level that it did ????

That would depend on the skill of the director. Tom has always (to my mind) been one of Tolkien's greatest, not to mention most fascinating & mysterious, characters. The whole Old Forest/Barrow Downs sequence could have been an amazing dream/nightmare sequence which imparted a real sense of strangeness & mystery to movies which lacked anything of the kind.

[Finduilas]

That would depend on the skill of the director. Tom has always (to my mind) been one of Tolkien's greatest, not to mention most fascinating & mysterious, characters. The whole Old Forest/Barrow Downs sequence could have been an amazing dream/nightmare sequence which imparted a real sense of strangeness & mystery to movies which lacked anything of the kind.

I agree totally. Nothing is wrong with Bombadil. Just another great character from a great writer.

[Sir Kohran]

I agree totally. Nothing is wrong with Bombadil. Just another great character from a great writer.

I disagree totally. Bombadil reads like an anachronism - his bizarre behaviour, his bumbling attitude, his strange speaking habits - all in all he reads more like a character from The Hobbit than LOTR. His insertion into the tale seems entirely random and somewhat tedious, and I'd say this one of very few points where Tolkien's writing falters somewhat.

To put him into the movie? Oh come on - introducing the Old Forest, taking on Old Man Willow, entering Tom's house, the conversation, the sequence on the Barrow Downs - you're already talking ten minutes at the very least, on a character and segment that has relatively little influence on the story overall. That simply isn't worth it. The movie is already over two hours (over three hours in the extended edition) as it is. Also, showing him laughing at the Ring would destroy all the sense of danger that has been built up around it previously. Finally a man in yellow boots singing a tree to sleep is frankly ridiculous, especially when put into movies that have been praised so much for their realistic view of fantasy.

The whole Old Forest/Barrow Downs sequence could have been an amazing dream/nightmare sequence which imparted a real sense of strangeness & mystery to movies which lacked anything of the kind.

The movies had a sense of mystery, in many ways more than the books - at one point Gandalf mentions 'the old wisdom born out of the West' - for a movie-viewer this wouldn't make any sense as nothing is told of the downfall of Numenor in the movies, yet it helps to create a sense of mystery as to what exactly happened back then. We just tend not to notice this because as book readers we already know all the answers. Also mystery is harder to convey in movies, where things are actually shown, instead of just written about.

[Sauron the White]

Sir Kohran captures my feelings about Bombadil excellently. I would agree and state that he was not even a good character in the book. But on the screen he would have killed the movie in its very tracks. JRRT was a great writer. But he was not perfect. No human is and no human endeavor is flawless.

[davem]

I disagree totally. Bombadil reads like an anachronism - his bizarre behaviour, his bumbling attitude, his strange speaking habits - all in all he reads more like a character from The Hobbit than LOTR. His insertion into the tale seems entirely random and somewhat tedious, and I'd say this one of very few points where Tolkien's writing falters somewhat.

This from a post of mine in the Chapter by Chapter read through:

So, what stories does he tell the hobbits, exactly?

He begins, with the place they’re in - the Old Forest. He tells them its nature & history, the stories of its inhabitants, giving them an insight into the place they’re in. then his stories take them out from the forest into the hills of the Barrow Downs. He takes them, also, back in time, back through the history of the Land, but his stories don’t stop there:

Quote:
When they caught his words again they found that he had now wandered into strange regions beyond their memory & beyond their waking thought (but not beyond their ‘sleeping’ thought?), into times when the world was wider, & the seas flowed straight to the western Shore; & still on & back Tom went singing out into the starlight, when the Elf-sres were awake.....The hobbits sat still before him, enchated; & it seemed as if, under the spell of his words, the wind had gone, , & the clouds had dried up, & the day had been withdrawn, & darkness had come from east & west, & all the sky was filled with the light of white stars...

Whether the morning & evening of one day or of many days had passed Frodo could not tell. He did not feel either hungry or tired, only filled with wonder. the stars shone through the window & the silence of the heavens seemed to be round him.
They have been transported from the everyday world, with the earth solid beneath their feet, back to the begining, where the stars of Elbereth shine in the silence. But still, Tom is there, his voice speaking out of that silence. And he is going to tell them something important, something vital - he tells them to ‘mark my words, my friends’:

Quote:
Tom was here before the river & the trees; Tom remembers the first raindrop & the first acorn He made paths before the Big People & saw the little People arriving . He was here before the Kings & the graves & the Barrow Wights. When the Elves passed westward, Tom was here already, befor the seas were bent. He knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless-before the Dark Lord came from Outside.
What Tom is telling them is that his ‘stories’ are not simply stories - they are his own memories - he is telling them of his own experiences. But this visionary experience doesn’t end with Tom standing in the fearless dark, beneath the stars, something else is to culminate the whole mystical experience:
Quote:
A shadow seemed to pass by the window, & the hobbits glanced hastily through the panes. When they turned again, Goldberry stood in the door behind, framed in light. She held a candle, shielding the flame from the draught with her hand: & the light flowed through it, like sunlight through a white shell.
‘The rain has ended,’ she said; ‘and new waters are running downhill, under the stars. Let us now laugh & be glad!’
We’ve gone back to the begining of the world, guided by Tom Bombadil, & who do we find awaiting us, bearing a light in her hand, echoing the Secret Fire, telling us that new waters are flowing under the stars, but Goldberry, the River Daughter!

Finally, what do we make of Tom’s verse:

Quote:
Ho! Tom Bombadil, Tom Bombadillo!
By water, wood & hill, by the reed & willow,
By fire, sun & moon, hearken now & hear us!
Come Tom Bombadil, for our need is near us!
This is a kind of ‘invocation’ - Tom is called by invoking the elements of the Land - water & earth, the living plants & trees (including the ‘dread’ Willow!), the (the ‘Secret’?)‘fire’, & finally, by the lights of heaven, the Sun & the Moon. They are to call on the elements of the Land beneath & the heavens above them, to bring Tom to their aid, & if they do so, he will come to them.

Also, showing him laughing at the Ring would destroy all the sense of danger that has been built up around it previously. Finally a man in yellow boots singing a tree to sleep is frankly ridiculous, especially when put into movies that have been praised so much for their realistic view of fantasy.

No it wouldn't - anymore than it does in the books. One of the main differences between book & movies is Tolkien's subtle exploration of the nature & power of the Ring, as opposed to Jackson's over-simplification of it.



The movies had a sense of mystery,

No - they just had an air of confusion.

[Sauron the White]

from davem regarding Tom Bombadil

No it wouldn't - anymore than it does in the books.

For once I agree with you since he was a total disaster to the books also. Either way he is simply a bad character.

[Finduilas]

Do you know...some of the most intelligent people I know (davem, my older brother, my sister, Tolkien, others) are the ones who love Bombadil. I wonder what that says about those who dislike him and say that it was Tolkien's worst moment?

-- Folwren, in disguise of her sister Finduilas

(That means, if you disagree with what I said, make your reply to Folwren and not to Finduilas. I was just too lazy to sign out of Fin's account and onto mine.)

[Sauron the White]

Do you know...some of the most intelligent people I know (davem, my older brother, my sister, Tolkien, others) are the ones who love Bombadil. I wonder what that says about those who dislike him and say that it was Tolkien's worst moment?

Well Folwren, when you frame it exactly that way, it means that anyone who does not adore Bombadil is an obvious idiot, has a bottom of the barrel IQ, probably cannot actually read LOTR in text format, and does not even call or send their sweet mother a card on the appropriate holiday occassions.

Does that about cover it?

[Finduilas]

About. :rolleyes:

It was mostly a joke - but in all honesty! It is clearly a matter of opinion whether or not Bombadil was a good or necessary character. I think he was supurb - another example of Tolkien's genius of making new and interesting characters! Others, such as yourself (and, I will add, a very dear friend of mine who is intelligent and smart despite her ideas of Tom B. ;) ), do not like him.

That doesn't give you the right to say that was Tolkien's worst moment and that he made a huge mistake in putting so much Bombadil in. For example, I personally think that Viggo played a horrible Aragorn, but I don't bash the many, many other young women or ladies or even guys who think he did a supurb job everytime we talk about it. It wouldn't be nice nor Christian like of me and people wouldn't like me very much if everytime we talked I pushed my opinions on them as though they were the only right opinions.

-- Folwren

[Sir Kohran]

Do you know...some of the most intelligent people I know (davem, my older brother, my sister, Tolkien, others) are the ones who love Bombadil. I wonder what that says about those who dislike him and say that it was Tolkien's worst moment?

Ah. So for loving Bombadil you are intelligent, whilst I am nothing more than a popcorn munching moron who should be taken outside and beaten for my disgusting behaviour in daring to have an opinion beyond 'everything Tolkien did was absolutely perfect'.

[Finduilas]

Ah. So for loving Bombadil you are intelligent, whilst I am nothing more than a popcorn munching moron who should be taken outside and beaten for my disgusting behaviour in daring to have an opinion beyond 'everything Tolkien did was absolutely perfect'.

Well, if you want to be beaten, sure. I never said so.

I might suggest broadening your horizons.

-- Fol

[Sir Kohran]

Well, if you want to be beaten, sure. I never said so.

I might suggest broadening your horizons.

-- Fol

Yet you imply it. You said davem and the others that love Bombadil were 'more intelligent'. Then you say the equivalent of 'so what does that make those who don't?', implying the opposite of 'more intelligent' - essentially those who do not love Bombadil are 'less intelligent'.

[Folwren]

I admit, what I said was very mean and not nice at all, and I deserve to be reprimanded for it, but you can take it at what it's worth - which is very little, for it was said in sarcasm. I have been insulted consistently by StW and once or twice by you and have said nothing and I guess my patience just popped. I'm not going to apologize, though I should, and I wish I would get in trouble for it, just so I could complain to the mods. To what end? None, because everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

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

-- Folwren

[davem]

Ah. So for loving Bombadil you are intelligent, whilst I am nothing more than a popcorn munching moron who should be taken outside and beaten for my disgusting behaviour in daring to have an opinion beyond 'everything Tolkien did was absolutely perfect'.

The whole Bombadil 'mythology' (which, let's not forget, was imported virtually wholesale into LotR from 'outside' - the poem 'The Adventures of Tom Bombadil' pre-existed LotR) is full of folkloric elements, & I suppose any reader unfamiliar with British folklore may struggle with Tom - though many readers with no such knowledge take to him straight off.

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

This little 'argument' can never be won because its all down to personal taste. For myself, the whole Old Forest, Bombadil, Barrow Downs episode is one of my favourite parts of LotR, & the book would be much, much less without it. I love the strange 'familiarity' (or familiar 'strangeness') of the whole sequence. If the Shire is a depiction of rural England around the time of (Queen Victoria's) Diamond Jubilee, as Tolkien stated, the Old Forest/Downs episode is a perfect depiction of an older, wilder England. I'd also venture to say that without those three chapters of LotR we may never have got Smith of Wooton Major. Both could be seen (on one level) as meditations on/explorations of England's Fairyland, & the Old Forest/Barrow Downs episode must be included, because of its (far more so than the Shire) quintesential 'Englishness'.

[Meriadoc1961]

I love Tom Bombadil, so I guess I am either a blithering idiot or a genius, depending on one's perspective!:p But I am glad to be in the company of Tolkien himself.;)

I have always found the first chapters of the book to be my favorites when it is just the four hobbits up through Bree. I have always loved them.

But to keep on topic, I still think they should keep the serving animals and Beorn in the Hobbit movie.

Merry

[Sauron the White]

Folwren.... you deserve no reprimand . Your posts are from the heart and good spirited so you deserve only a smile. ;) You did phrase it in such a way as to allow only the good on your side while the evil took the other side. But that is okay because davem just did the same thing

I suppose any reader unfamiliar with British folklore may struggle with Tom - though many readers with no such knowledge take to him straight off.

So those of us who do not like TB struggle with him out of ignorance having no knowledge of British folklore. We could be experts on British folklore and still not like the doggerel spewing mess of primary color. But it demeans the other side so much more when you can say their opinions are founded from lack of knowledge.

By the way, I simply love JRRT's digression into ME history and wish there were even more of it. Cannot get enough of the historical end of things. And I sincerely say that.

The idea that the entire book revolves around this terrible and powerful Ring which can corrupt anyone and must be destroyed or civilization will fall stops dead in its tracks by the introduction of a character who
a- can wear the ring with no effect
b- has no interest in it at all
c- seems to be the one being over which it has no power over but could not care less
d- will do nothing to help the situation
e- does absolutely nothing to further the basic plot or advance the story

You cut out TB from the book, you lose nothing but doggerel and the worst set of mismatched brightly colored clothing in the history of literature.

[Mithalwen]

Personally I dislike Beorn, I dislike Bombadil, (in Rowling's ouevre I dislike Hagrid.. is his a pattern?) but I don't think it is a question of intelligence more of how you view Tolkiens' world.

Having followed the relevant parts of the Chapter by Chapter.. I know that some downers I respect greatly like Bombadil and see him as the means in which the everyday world moves into fairytale and myth - that no doubt is a gross simplification at best but I have not the skill to express it better. I do see what they mean but I still don't like Bombadil et all and find it jarrs and mars the near perfection of Tolkien's created world. I am not one of those who like to pretend to themselves that it is real but I like the plausibility of it all. Bombadil just always feels he belongs in a different book. Surely not a matter of intelligence just personal taste?

While I am no great apologist for the films - I watched them...enjoyed aspects never felt very inclined to watch again... I would point out that the BBC radio version which had a lot more time at it's disposal also omitted Bombadil - even though the scriptwriter liked him (and made the Adventures of TB separately).

Bombadil is a difficult and complex character for those of us who know Tolkien's word intimately - how hard would it be to make sense of him in more simplistic media?

[davem]

The idea that the entire book revolves around this terrible and powerful Ring which can corrupt anyone and must be destroyed or civilization will fall stops dead in its tracks by the introduction of a character who
a- can wear the ring with no effect
b- has no interest in it at all
c- seems to be the one being over which it has no power over but could not care less
d- will do nothing to help the situation
e- does absolutely nothing to further the basic plot or advance the story

Yes - I stated that the Bombadil 'mythus' was imported wholesale into M-e. The Hobbits have crossed into another 'world', where different rules apply, & for that very reason are able to get a new perspective on the Ring, the Quest & the nature of their world.

You cut out TB from the book, you lose nothing but doggerel and the worst set of mismatched brightly colored clothing in the history of literature.

No, you lose one of the most fascinating things Tolkien ever wrote, & you lose some of his most beautiful & evocative writing.

[Mithalwen]

No, you lose one of the most fascinating things Tolkien ever wrote, & you lose some of his most beautiful & evocative writing.

I'd still shove Bombadil in Orudruin (along with his chapters) if he started spouting his sub-vogon poetry at me ;) and you wouldn't want to sit next to him on a long haul flight. However I usually content myself with pretending he doesn't exist and eliding the early chapters....:p

[Meriadoc1961]

Sauron the White wrote:

"The idea that the entire book revolves around this terrible and powerful Ring which can corrupt anyone and must be destroyed or civilization will fall stops dead in its tracks by the introduction of a character who
a- can wear the ring with no effect
b- has no interest in it at all
c- seems to be the one being over which it has no power over but could not care less
d- will do nothing to help the situation
e- does absolutely nothing to further the basic plot or advance the story"

I disagree completely. Bombadil is an incarnation of Iluvatar, the creator. He is, therefore, light-hearted and care-free because he is the creator. He "will do nothing to help the situation" is faulty, for he intervenes and saves the ring and the hobbits who were trapped by the Barrow-wight, who was a servant of the Dark Lord. But I agree he "will do nothing to help the situation" directly involving the destruction of the ring for Tolkien understood the concept of free will. Iluvatar did not make his creation one that was filled with programmable robots. His creatures could think for themselves and make choices based upon right or wrong because he created them as moral beings (sound familiar?). He does advance the plot of the story because it is he who gives hope, both to Sam and Frodo, as well as to Gandalf and other characters in the book. Bombadil (Iluvatar) is the light that Sam realizes could never be reached by the darkness.

Merry

[Lalwendë]

Without weirdness like Bombadil or Bilbo I fear Lord of the Rings might stray too far into 'sword and sorcery' territory, a world of rights and wrongs and muscular heroes. But it doesn't. It is a world with enigmatic figures who cannot neatly be put down on one 'side' or another. Bombadil brings depth and interest. He, along with figures such as Shelob, Fell Beasts, Dragons, Eagles, Woses and Barrow-wights, shows us that this is a diverse world, populated by beings outside the usual Elf/Man/Dwarf hierarchy.

In our own world we have Men as a species, plus a lot of animals we understand (or at least think we do, who can explain the mind of the domestic cat? ;) ), but we also have creatures we do not understand. We have tales of Loch Ness Monsters, Yetis, Boggarts, Fairies, etc. Had Tolkien created his own world without all of these types of things then it would have been all the more poverty stricken, grey and depressing for it.

Stylistically, if one of Tolkien's aims was to create something he could dedicate to England then it was only right that he create something with odd, enigmatic figures in it, such as are found in English folklore already. And narratively, those three chapters with TB form a valuable bridge between the familiarity of The Shire to the more perilous realms; the Old Forest is a foreshadowing of Fangorn, the Barrow Downs of the Paths of the Dead or Shelob's Lair.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Sauron the White wrote:

"The idea that the entire book revolves around this terrible and powerful Ring which can corrupt anyone and must be destroyed or civilization will fall stops dead in its tracks by the introduction of a character who
a- can wear the ring with no effect
b- has no interest in it at all
c- seems to be the one being over which it has no power over but could not care less
d- will do nothing to help the situation
e- does absolutely nothing to further the basic plot or advance the story"

I disagree completely. Bombadil is an incarnation of Iluvatar, the creator. He is, therefore, light-hearted and care-free because he is the creator. He "will do nothing to help the situation" is faulty, for he intervenes and saves the ring and the hobbits who were trapped by the Barrow-wight, who was a servant of the Dark Lord. But I agree he "will do nothing to help the situation" directly involving the destruction of the ring for Tolkien understood the concept of free will. Iluvatar did not make his creation one that was filled with programmable robots. His creatures could think for themselves and make choices based upon right or wrong because he created them as moral beings (sound familiar?). He does advance the plot of the story because it is he who gives hope, both to Sam and Frodo, as well as to Gandalf and other characters in the book. Bombadil (Iluvatar) is the light that Sam realizes could never be reached by the darkness.

Merry
Hmmm... that is a good point, but I didn't think of Tom as a reincarnation of Iluvatar, he gives hope to the Hobbits though. Especially when they got trapped by the Barrow-wight, and he also saved them... now I wouldn't want to be trapped in a plane for a flight that has some long hours with Frodo, but not with Bombadil.

[Sir Kohran]

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

Well thank you for having the decency to apologise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bombadil is an incarnation of Iluvatar, the creator.

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

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

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

[Finduilas]

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

~Finduilas~

[Sir Kohran]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Finduilas]

and get back to what's important - Tolkien. :)

Aye, aye. Point taken...

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

[Lord Halsar]

Bombadil is an incarnation of Iluvatar, the creator. He is, therefore, light-hearted and care-free because he is the creator. He "will do nothing to help the situation" is faulty, for he intervenes and saves the ring and the hobbits who were trapped by the Barrow-wight, who was a servant of the Dark Lord. But I agree he "will do nothing to help the situation" directly involving the destruction of the ring for Tolkien understood the concept of free will. Iluvatar did not make his creation one that was filled with programmable robots. His creatures could think for themselves and make choices based upon right or wrong because he created them as moral beings (sound familiar?). He does advance the plot of the story because it is he who gives hope, both to Sam and Frodo, as well as to Gandalf and other characters in the book. Bombadil (Iluvatar) is the light that Sam realizes could never be reached by the darkness.

Merry

I believe that it is clearly stated on some of the most Tolkien-informatable sites, *cough* *Encyclopedia of Arda* *cough, cough*, that Iluvatar has NO physical incarnation in Arda WHATSOEVER save for the Flame Imperishable itself.

[davem]

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


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

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

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

[Sir Kohran]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sauron the White]

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

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

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

[davem]

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

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

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

[Sauron the White]

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

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

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

[Folwren]

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

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

-- Folwren

[Sir Kohran]

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

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

-- Folwren

It certainly could. We could have ended up with a grinning hippy in yellow boots or a half an hour Council of non-stop talking. These things may work in text but on film they would not.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

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

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


Just another iteration of the stale McDonald's argument. It would have been better because it would have improved things about the films that are bad. Full stop.

The ninnies who vote for Oscars, and still less the unwashed hordes of mouthbreathing troglodytes who pack multiplexes, are utterly, completely irrelevant as evidence or ratification of artistic success.

[Folwren]

It certainly could. We could have ended up with a grinning hippy in yellow boots or a half an hour Council of non-stop talking. These things may work in text but on film they would not.

Did I say follow the books exactly? Word for word? Or remotely word for word? No! I believe what I said was:

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

Emphasis added.

Of course, my opinion would lead the movies to follow the books a bit more than a 'little', but I wouldn't say that the movies should follow the books exactly, and I am convinced that davem would not say so, either.

[Sir Kohran]

Did I say follow the books exactly? Word for word? Or remotely word for word? No! I believe what I said was:



Emphasis added.

Of course, my opinion would lead the movies to follow the books a bit more than a 'little', but I wouldn't say that the movies should follow the books exactly, and I am convinced that davem would not say so, either.

Well I see no point in asking for a 'little' more closeness. It simply becomes petty. There are all sorts of things from the books that could be added in as being a 'little' closer, and all sorts of things from the books that could be taken out and it would be a 'little' further away. I believe what we're debating is the big issues -the Council, Tom, etc.

[Sauron the White]

Fowlren ... sorry if you felt I mischaracterized your remarks. Yes, I do understand that you wanted to follow the books a lot closer. However, your idea of closer would not be close enough for some others. Then again, it may be too close for others. There is no happy medium or perfect compromise that will please everyone. We still end up with unhappy and the opinion struggle of books vs. films would still be going onward.

[Sauron the White]

from WCH

The ninnies who vote for Oscars, and still less the unwashed hordes of mouthbreathing troglodytes who pack multiplexes, are utterly, completely irrelevant as evidence or ratification of artistic success.

William, do you think your comments have just the slightest tinge of superiority about them? They certainly strike me that way.

I believe that the "ninnies who vote for Oscars" are professionals who have devoted their careers and lives to the business and art of film.

The common folk that you so harshly describe are the same people who keep society functioning by going to work each day, paying their taxes, raising their families and providing goods for our pantries. Without them, there would be no movies.... or books for that matter other than the occassional manuscript that is seen by very few. Sounds like the good old days of the Dark Ages.

What is interesting about the LOTR films is that they were a rousing success from all three segments of the way we normally measure a films success: Professional critics generally gave them glowing reviews, the public responded with $4 billion dollars US, and thier peers in the business showered them with awards of excellence. Normally at least one of those categories precludes or negates the other one or two.

I am in my late 50's and have been following film closely for some 45 years now and have never seen anything like that before. I wonder if you appreciate the rarity of that convergence?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The common folk that you so harshly describe are the same people who keep society functioning by going to work each day, paying their taxes, raising their families and providing goods for our pantries.

And Michelangelo's work at St Peter's and the Sistine Chapel was made possible, ultimately, by the tithes of millions of illiterate peasants. Does that mean he was working to please them? Of course not.



I am in my late 50's and have been following film closely for some 45 years now and have never seen anything like that before. I wonder if you appreciate the rarity of that convergence?

Perhaps you've forgotten Lawrence of Arabia? Ben-Hur? The Sound of Music? Dr Zhivago? All much better films- and all of them, incidentally, very heavily altered from their sources. Again, I don't argue with the need for adaptation- but adaptation must be sensitive to the spirit of the original. Reading Lawrence's Seven Pillars of Wisdom, it's clear that Lean, while altering or fabricating virtually every incident, "got" Lawrence and understood what he was all about. Not so PJ.

Anyway, you're trying to argue a point by claiming that 1 + 0 + 0 is three. It's just one. The opinions of film critics are worth paying attention to, even as a basis for disagreement; but box-office figures as a measure of quality are worthless. Meaningless. Zero. The same, I'm afraid, goes for the Oscars. Do you have any idea how Oscar voting works? How most voters have never seen the films they're voting on? How often ballots are delegated to personal assistants or other lackeys? How so many members of the Academy are not "professionals" in any sense beyond the obvious one that they get paid to work on movies; which does not in itself qualify them as experts in cinematic art (or, in many cases, to tie their own shoes). This is an election in which Anna Nicole Smith was qualified to vote.

As evidence in support of which I offer Exhibit A, just another such convergence within the last decade: Titanic. An eleven-Oscar, boffo box-office turd.

[Sauron the White]

I beg to differ. There are three ways that the film industry looks to see if their films were a success. None of them include the adulation of the book community to see if they kept close enough to the source material.

The three areas the film community respects are
1- box office receipts above and beyond anything else
2- the acclaim of professional critics partly because it can impact #1 and partly because it can and does add to the prestige of a film or even a studio
3- industry and professional awards like the BAFTA's or Academy Awards, again same reason as #1 and 2.

In all three cases, the LOTR films were a rousing success by all three measurements.

Yes, there have been films that hit all three -- and you did mention some. But again, compare that to the number of films issued each year and multiply that by year after year. BEN HUR, LAWRENCE, LOTR - these are rare films and to have such success on all three levels is rare.

your point

And Michelangelo's work at St Peter's and the Sistine Chapel was made possible, ultimately, by the tithes of millions of illiterate peasants. Does that mean he was working to please them? Of course not.

isthe exact opposite of the situation that any filmmaker and any studio finds themselves in. Michaelangelo did NOT need to have the actual love and adulation of those masses of people or even their approval. He needed the approval of a single autocrat - the Pope. He was working for an audience of one. A filmmaker and film studio does not have that luxury.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The three areas the film community respects are

Why is that relevant to anyone but shareholders? An industry is interested in profit: duh. So is the oil industry, although at least Halliburton isn't disposed to pretend to be making art.

Again: if this tripartite convergence was knockdown, irrefutable evidence of Great Film....explain Titanic.

[Sauron the White]

Why is that important? Because we are talking about film and the making of films is a business more than anything else. That is a simple fact of the real world we all live in. To pretend anything else is folly. Yes, some of it is art. There is a combination of the two. That is why things like critical praise becomes important as well as industry awards for artistic excellence.

Again, you can make fun of the voters or the awards or mock the critics or ridicule the common man but those are the things the industry feels are important. Nobody in the film industry with any power or influence gives a tinkers damn about how faithful source material is to the final product. Nobody.

You can resent that fact. You can rail against it. But you will be akin to the man who stands upon the shore and tries to stop the tide by planting his feet firly into the soggy sand and raising his arms against the powers of the incoming waters.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

And, in addition, I can declare the movies to be commercial pap, bad adaptations, and unworthy of the original.

It doesn't bother me in the least that "nobody in the film industry with any power or influence" cares about making art. It does bother me that in their tinsel hypocrisy they pretend to; and that bounders like Peter Jackson feel compelled to spin a line of BS about how 'faithful' they are being yadda yadda yadda. A little honesty would be appreciated here: they did it to make a fast buck.

[Sauron the White]

from WCH

It doesn't bother me in the least that "nobody in the film industry with any power or influence" cares about making art.

Where did you get that from? I hope you are not going to say it came from me. I said its a business first and art second. To say that nobody in the film industry with any power or influence does not care abotu making art is NOT what I said.
I notice that you use quotes around parts of the phrase and then make the rest up to suit your purposes. Is that fair?

It does bother me that in their tinsel hypocrisy they pretend to; and that bounders like Peter Jackson feel compelled to spin a line of BS about how 'faithful' they are being yadda yadda yadda. A little honesty would be appreciated here: they did it to make a fast buck.

If they made it to make a fast buck they certainly took quite a convoluted, complex and highly risky road to get there. And with a film property that up until that time was box office poison and thought my many to be unfilmable by its own author. Fast buck indeed!!!!

And besides..... making a buck ... is that not the decision JRRT himself made when he sold the film rights?

[radagastly]

Originally Posted by WCH:
The ninnies who vote for Oscars, and still less the unwashed hordes of mouthbreathing troglodytes who pack multiplexes, are utterly, completely irrelevant as evidence or ratification of artistic success.


I was casually watching this thread with some amusement, as it's an argument that has railed since the movies were first released, but I couldn't pass this up without saying something. I believe art (any art) without an audience is no longer art. It is at best, therapy and more often, self-gratification. No one person, whether he is a member of the literati or a mouth-breathing troglodyte or an Oxford professor of philology is more qualified than any other one person to determine what is "good" art or not, except on their own behalf. A work of art with an audience of one person may well be a great work of art for that person, but he can hardly discuss it with himself. Someone else must be familiar with it, even if they don't like it for some reason, in order to begin a discussion. Else it would be a monologue. Almost inevitably, such discussions lead to comparisons of said work of art with other works of art, at which point some kind of objective standard must be applied to keep the discussion from spiraling downward. Box-office (for lack of a better word) is a legitimate objective measure of quality. Shakespeare is still played in theatres, hundreds of years after his death, at least partly because his name sells tickets. While that may or may not make him a "better" playwrite than, say, Aristophanes, it does make him more effective. More people have had access to his work, therefore his work has more potential influence on peoples thinking and feeling.

If the earliest movie discussions are still available (I believe much of that was lost in the transition to V-Bulletin), you will see that I have a relatively low opinion of these movies. Many of PJ's decisions seem to fall in direct opposition to Tolkien's themes and sensibilities. There were some things that he got right, like the overall look of Middle-Earth, and some of the casting, especially Bilbo, Gandalf, Theoden and Denethor. There was much that he got wrong, but I've detailed my opinions of that elsewhere. At any rate, enough ranting. I'm afraid that literati conceits are a hot-button for me.

As for the animal servants in the "Queer Lodgings" chapter of The Hobbit, I would certainly hope that they would be included in the film, especially if Beorn is going to change to a bear. Shapeshifters have so often been portrayed as evil, or having ulterior motives or untrustworthy that the loyalty of nature and of these animals, depending on how it is handled, would enhance the strangeness of the scene as well as landing Beorn on the side of good without having to change his gruff personality. Keeping the audience guessing as to his relative goodness or evil would enhance the eucatastrophic triumph of his arrival at the Battle of Five Armies.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

And besides..... making a buck ... is that not the decision JRRT himself made when he sold the film rights?

Perforce. Tolkien found himself in a potentially catastrophic situation in 1968-9: nominally wealthy enough to fall into the top tax bracket (96%), he didn't actually have the cash to pay his monstrous bill from the Inland Revenue. He had to raise some dosh immediately, and UA was interested in providing it.

Having sold out, however, Tolkien was entirely satisfied that (at least during his lifetime) the movies would never be made, which was thoroughly to his liking.

Please don't make the error of confusing Tolkien's "cash or kudos" attitude during the negotiations with Ackerman in the Fifties with what transpired with UA a decade later (an episode on which the published Letters are entirely silent). While in 1958 he was certainly not averse to income, having a meagre retirement looming, he was nonetheless able to walk away when neither Art nor Cash were on offer. In 1968, although indubitably richer, he was also desperate, and in no position to hold out.

[Sauron the White]

Outside of the independent rich the vast vast majority of us needs cash for all kinds of various purposes. Tolkien was no better or no worse in that regard. We all have to pay our taxes and our bills. I still wonder about the ethics of selling somebody something which you feel is actually worthless and which cannot be actualized or realized.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

However, whether Tolkien sold the film rights eagerly, or only when forced by circumstances, is entirely relevant to the question as to whether, given his druthers, he wanted to see film adaptations made.

[Morwen]

Outside of the independent rich the vast vast majority of us needs cash for all kinds of various purposes. Tolkien was no better or no worse in that regard. We all have to pay our taxes and our bills. I still wonder about the ethics of selling somebody something which you feel is actually worthless and which cannot be actualized or realized.

As long as you're not misrepresenting the nature of what you're selling, what does it matter if you personally regard it is worthless?

[Sauron the White]

However, whether Tolkien sold the film rights eagerly, or only when forced by circumstances, is entirely relevant to the question as to whether, given his druthers, he wanted to see film adaptations made.

He eagerly cashed the check and spent the money knowing full well what he was doing of his own free will and with a sound mind. He said he would go for art or cash and he selected cash. He knew that the deal he entered into gave away the film rights to both THE HOBBIT and LOTR in perpetuity and allowing him no involvement or say of any kind. His sale of the film rights, under the terms he entered into freely, gave the holders, and in turn Peter Jackson, the right to make any changes he saw fit with the full authorization and approval of JRRT.

Given the tremendous increase in the sales of LOTR over the past six years, I am reasonably confident that - had the Professor been alive now - he would have a very broad smile upon his face every time he cashed a royalty check for book sales that were many times what he had been used to. The movies would have put a smile on his face, a skip in his step and a song in his heart. The movies would have given him millions of reasons to celebrate their success.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

He said he would go for art or cash and he selected cash.

Please reread my post above- don't confuse the "Art or Cash" era with the situation ten years later.

When the Earl of Fluteney is forced by confiscatory taxation to make over his ancestral home to the National Trust, does that mean he wanted to do it? Of course not. If it were up to him he'd continue living there, and pass it in turn to his son. Don't claim that a decision taked under duress is voluntary, any more than signing that contract with Luca Brazzi's gun to your temple.

[Sauron the White]

With all due respect sir, that is a huge line of malarkey. JRRT darn well knew the laws of paying taxes since he had been doing it for some time. Nobody .... nobody .... nobody forced him to sell his film rights.

Please tell me why his LETTERS do not apply? He clearly said art or cash? If anything, what had changed is that he became even more concerned about cash in his waning years and cared less about the art side of the issue.

Quite frankly I do not give a hoot about some Earl or Baron or upper crust landed piece of royalty and their tax problems. Must be tough to sell off a few thousand acres of something you inherited and never worked for a day in your life to purchase. I could not care less about that.

JRRT was a college professor who had the advice of his publisher and access to legal advice and assistance. His LETTERS clearly and without any doubt state what his choices were and he acted of his own free will like any citizen.

Lets face it, we all know that the power of the government could come down upon us if we do not obey the laws be it taxation or anything else. Why is JRRT any different than the common person? Answer: he is not.

Perhaps you believe that the upper classes or the better people have more rights and should get more benefits than us uncouth mouth breathers? If so, I have no sympathy with that elitist attitude.

JRRT was of sound mind and body when he signed that films rights contract. He needed money. Big deal. We all do. And we all do what we have to do to meet our legal obligations. That is not duress or force. Its called real life and being a man without whining about it.

[Aiwendil]

Sauron the White: I think you may have missed the point.

The argument was this: The fact that JRRT needed the money and thus sold the film rights doesn't mean that he gave up the right to have an opinion on future adaptations. As indeed his reaction to the Zimmerman script shows.

[Sauron the White]

Aiwendil said

The fact that JRRT needed the money and thus sold the film rights doesn't mean that he gave up the right to have an opinion on future adaptations.

Of course one always has the right to their opinion. Unless one signs a contract with a clause that demands their silence, an opinion is free and interfers with nobody else or their rights or property. I imagine one could argue that one sells total rights to someone else and cashes the check and spends the money, decency and propriety may demand that you take a low profile regarding the other persons exercising of their rights. After all, you did sign the deal and give them complete control in perpetuity. But that is a matter of individual decision.

I think Hemingway had it right. He said that the best way to sell a book to a film studio was on an otherwise deserted beach at midnight. The author tosses the book towards the producer while he in turn tosses a briefcase filled with cash to the author. Then the two never bother each other again.

[Meriadoc1961]

TheGreatElvenWarrior wrote:

"Hmmm... that is a good point, but I didn't think of Tom as a reincarnation of Iluvatar, he gives hope to the Hobbits though. Especially when they got trapped by the Barrow-wight, and he also saved them... now I wouldn't want to be trapped in a plane for a flight that has some long hours with Frodo, but not with Bombadil."

The reason I wrote that Tom was an incarnation of Iluvatar (Eru) is because of the exchange Frodo has with Tom:

"Who are you, Master?" he asked

"Eh, what?" said Tom sitting up, and his eyes glinting in the gloom. "Don't you know my name yet? That's the only answer. Tell me, who are you, alone, yourself and nameless? But you are young and I am old. Eldest, that's what I am. mark my words, my friends: Tom was here before the river and the trees; Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn. He made paths before the Big People, and saw the little People arriving. He was here before the Kings and the graves and the Barrow-wights. When the Elves passed westward, Tom was here already. He knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless -- before the Dark Lord came from Outside."

Additionally, this exchange took place between Frodo and Goldberry which also influenced my opinion that Tom was an incarnation of Iluvatar:

"Fair lady!" said Frodo again after a while. "Tell me, if my asking does not seem foolish, who is Tom Bombadil??

"He is," said Goldberry. staying her swift movements and smiling.

Later on she continues by saying, "Tom Bombadil is the Master."

"He has no fear. Tom Bombadil is master."

Now compare this to a conversation that Moses had with God in Exodus 3:13-15. Tolkien was heavily influenced by the Bible as he was a Catholic:

And Moses said unto God, "Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me unto you'; and they shall say to me, 'What is His name? What shall I say unto them?'

And God said unto Moses, "I AM THAT I AM": and He said, "Thus shall you say unto the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me unto you.'"

And God said moreover unto Moses, "Thus shall you say unto the children of Israel, 'Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me unto you': this is My name forever, and this is My memorial unto all generations."

So we have God telling Moses, "I AM THAT I AM." Goldberry says in reference to Tom, "He is."


Merry

[Sauron the White]

Tolkien was heavily influenced by the Bible as he was a Catholic:

As someone born and raised Catholic complete with 12 years in a Catholic school, I can tell you that of all the Christian faiths the Catholic Church depends less on the Bible than most other faiths. It means far more to various Protestant sects.

Of course, Tokien could have been very heavy on the Bible. Perhaps someone does know this and can set it straight. I just wanted to correct the impression that because he was a Catholic it would make sense that he was then heavilly influenced by the Bible. The two do not necessarily go together.

[Meriadoc1961]

Sauron the White,

That was a very honest admission. I thank you for your forthrightness.

Tolkien was very much responsible for converting his good friend, C. S. Lewis, out of atheism, as they met weekly with other men at a local pub. This is part of my reasoning that Tom was an incarnation of Iluvatar, just as I see Gandalf, Aragorn and Frodo all as messiah figures, but that should probably be discussed in another thread.

Merry:)

[davem]

Perhaps someone does know this and can set it straight. I just wanted to correct the impression that because he was a Catholic it would make sense that he was then heavilly influenced by the Bible. The two do not necessarily go together.

If you're looking for literary influences I'd say the Bible is a long way down the list.

Beowulf, The Eddas, The Kalevala, The Mabinogion, the Icelandic Sagas, the works of William Morris & fairy stories generally were all far greater influences.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Perhaps you believe that the upper classes or the better people have more rights and should get more benefits than us uncouth mouth breathers? If so, I have no sympathy with that elitist attitude.

Then let's use another example: if an impoverished HIV-positive mother in Africa finds she cannot possibly care for another baby, and then a wealthy Hollywood celebrity offers to buy -er - "pay an adoption fee for" her child, and in her desperation she accepts: is that really voluntary?

You can pick any analogy or hypothetical you like: people in financial distress find themselves forced -yes, forced- to hock or sell prized possessions thay would not willingly part with.

Some indication of Tolkien's desperation can be seen from the terms, or rather the absent terms- he retained no creative control, or assurances of "art;" nor was he able to include the permanent ban on sale to Disney he wanted; nor really was there much Cash: although UA paid $250,000, Tolkien only received 10 grand, the rest (96%) being taxed away: and of course the 10k he realized went to pay the original taxes.

Moreover, his recorded statement at the time reinforces the essential point- Tolkien didn't *want* movies made of his books.

[Sauron the White]

WCH - I do not want to get nailed again for being off topic. But it seems like many internet discussions, this would come down to a definition of things like "Coercion... voluntary .... force" and those other things key to the discussion.

I simply see Tolkien as absolutely no different than any other person in the world who has wants and needs and has a reason to obtain cash to satisfy them. I see ones tax obligation as no different than ones food bill, utilities, or clothing bills. Its all on the side of the accounting ledger labeled as EXPENSES.

We could argue all day as to if JRRT wanted movies made of his books. There is one simple fact here which stands above the others in this discussion. JRRT did indeed sell the film rights under very broad conditions which turned out not to be very favorable to him. He did what he did and nobody held Lucca Brazi's gun to his head.

What I do find interesting is that you quote a figure of $250,000.00 paid to JRRT. That is the highest estimate I have seen. I find it quite interesting that Saul Zaentz was able to purchase these rights for $10,000.00 (I think that is the right figure - anyone have a different one?) a relatively short time later. Maybe the idea took hold that the movies were unfilmable and Zaeltz got himself one of the best deals since the purchase of Manhattan island.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Zaentz has indeed boasted that his purchase of the Tolkien rights was a bargain which has profited him greatly. Shortly after the projected John Boorman version fizzled out, UA was bought out by TransAmerica, which promptly fired most of its executives, including those behind the Tolkien deal. New management regarded the LR and Hobbit rights as wasted money, and were happy to unload them for whatever they could get.

The traditional figure for Tolkien's sale for years has been $10,000. However, about the time FR came out, the Times of London reported that the true contract price was $250,000 (actually they reported 103,000 pounds.)

Both 'traditions' are correct. A quarter-million is what UA paid, and 10 grand is what Tolkien got- the difference going to HM Government.


*******

Tolkien's attitude can be illustrated as well by an account of his seeing a school stage production of The Hobbit in Oxford which he had given permission for (without seeing the script). He apparently enjoyed himself greatly and smiled broadly when his own dialogue and incidents were enacted; but scowled and muttered under his breath at deviation and 'invention.'

[Lord Halsar]

By God! This thread has certainly gotten off topic in more places than I can list!