Come Visit Bree: a terrible land filled with toothless giants and muddy alchoholics!
 

Bree was, well, interesting. (I won't say different for fear of the "artistic liscense" activists) PJ made some clever choices in his production of that quaint little town. He decided that it would not be a dry resting place filled with civilized folk, but rather, a more disturbing place (hobbitless of course) filled with stumbling drunkards, <B>ferret</B>-petting toothless giants, and hysterically laughing muddy men, apparently straight from a local gutter. What is up to us movie goers/Tolkien fans is to interpret the reasons for PJ's, ahem, "interpretation" of Tolkien's work. <P>Here's my amateur prospective of the situation:<P>Our <B>beloved</B> Mr. Jackson has felt the need/desire to shorten the story told in Part One of the Lord of the Rings. We cannot criticize him, because this is his job as a director/writer. He saw the story of Frodo's journey to Rivendell as a slightly dull, and definately drawn out section of the tale, and so, to keep the audience attentive while shortening the overly complex plot Professor Tolkien wrote, he felt the need to change it. Here are a few changes that took place to accomadate the the condensation of Book I: <P>1. Manner of Frodo's departure, i.e. the fact that he did not deliberate, and that the choice did not seem to be even his own. Also the directions Gandalf gave to him, which greatly affect the Hobbits' perception of Bree.<P>2. The removal of Tom Bombadil. Tom was an assuring character that comforted the Hobbits and gave them valued advice as to the nature of Bree, its inhabitants, and the Prancing Pony itself. Without him, Bree became a mysterious, if not terrifying town of various unknowns.<P>3. The blasted rain. A trivial factor, but still one which has an enourmous effect on mood and setting. The bumbling hoboes with carrots that wander the streets of bree with wet hair and faces have a revolting effect on audiences, compared to the comfortable, dry, and (mostly) friendly town that Tolkien describes in "At the Sign of the Prancing Pony".<P>When viewing these changes, we see the mood and plot background of Book I collapse, leaving the shallow mess that Peter has (unintentionally, no doubt) given us.<BR> <BR> <P>Rediscovering my hatred for FotR,<BR>Iarwain<P>P.S. I hope that's better, Mattius and Ransom! <p>[ April 27, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

I always wondered why in the movie Bree looked so unfriendly. When I read teh book, I thought it was very nice, especially in the Prancing Pony. Some of these interpetations of PJ's, really, <I>what was he thinking???</I><P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> We cannot criticize him, because this is his job as a director/writer. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Oh yes we can! He has every right to change the film, but we have every right to criticize him, even if it might not be fair (which most of the time, I do think it <I>is</I> fair). But I know what you mean.

Of course, what you are saying about the changes in Bree are true, I still liked movie Bree. It worked on a "movie" level for me.I have no idea why, except that it seemed to match some vision I have of a "mannish" town from a fairy tale. I got a thrill from the swinging sign of The Prancing Pony" in the rain. My favorite bit was Butterbur's "Wee Willy Winky" nightcap, and shut eyes of fear and dread, as the Nazgul storm through. I attributed the ugliness of the men at the inn as a way of conveying the heightened "senses" Frodo was developing as ringbearer. In my mind, I imagine his senses of smell, sight, sound etc to be a little LSDish because of the ring's power. (especially when he wears it!) This is not a statement of right or wrong, just my experience. (which is all that matters to me, I read and watch for pleasure! ) I really don't compare it to the book, because all friendly Bree hobbits, trying to figure out how they are related the the Shire hobbits are gone. Frodo's not writing a book.....it's all changed. It still works for me in the context of "The Movie". I see the movie and books as two different things, (now! )and the "Movie Bree" still worked as an introduction the the terror and hopelessness of Frodo's attempt to be an operative on the side of "good" in the "ring business". Also, an introduction to Aragorn. I am selfish, and am concerned with my pleasure while watching the film, not whether it matches the "intetions" of Tolkien. That is another kettle of fish!

I agree with you Willie, that bit about criticizing was supposed to be sarcastic. (so hard to portray feeling in textual messages)<P>Iarwain

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>the shallow mess that Peter has (unintentionally, no doubt) given us.<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Some of these interpetations of PJ's, really, what was he thinking???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Oh yes we can! He has every right to change the film, but we have every right to criticize him<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>He decided that it would not be a dry resting place filled with civilized folk, but rather, a more disturbing place (hobbitless of course) filled with stumbling drunkards, rat-petting toothless giants, and hysterically laughing muddy men, apparently straight from a local gutter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Ironic then that Peter Jackson himself is one of those people, in fact, he's the guy eating the carrot!<P><BR>EDIT: I found a picture of the guy! <p>[ April 27, 2003: Message edited by: Mattius ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>rat-petting toothless giants<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I'm fairly sure that was a ferret or a weasel, not a rat.

I knew about PJ as the carrot man before hand. hehehe.<P>Ok, that's interesting. I'll leave it until you can confirm that it isn't a rat, though. <P>Iarwain

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I am selfish, and am concerned with my pleasure while watching the film, not whether it matches the "intetions" of Tolkien. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>hear! hear! I agree with that and will second it by further saying that I enjoy the differences for the fact that it gives me 'two' stories or versions to enjoy. One can't hold a candle to the other, but that is as it should be. And they are different enough that I don't get them confused and 'actually' picture Elijah as Frodo, etc... which was a worry in the beginning for me.<P>As my old gaffer used to say "Sam," he said, "candy doesn't taste as good to spoiled kids." Then the old gaff would put that old pipe of southfarthing in his mouth and sing away, "<I>Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got till it's gone..."</I>

I think it is a ferret, in fact I would bet my life it is. They are getting quite popular as pets now too

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I agree with that and will second it by further saying that I enjoy the differences for the fact that it gives me 'two' stories or versions to enjoy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Can I third that. Well put.<P>I don't understand Bree being described as a mess simply because it is different from the one presented by Tolkien. The Hobbits are now out of the Shire, without a guide and with no idea where to go. It's only natural that Jackson is going to want to reflect their discomfort through their surroundings.<P>H.C.

You like this new idea, and that's great for you three, but it really doesn't change the fact that it is a clear step down in plot complexity and prevents audiences from reaching a further understanding of Frodo's character. He is afraid in Bree because that is the obvious emotion for him to feel, not because the moviemaking mastermind, Peter Jackson, has decided that for one short portion of the film the story will be shown from a hobbit's prospective. Allow me to explain the degradation that has taken place.<P>Frodo's character has been made less. He knows things he oughtn't have during Gandalf's explaination in Bag End, and then doesn't know things he ought when he actually undertakes his journey. Since acting not out of his own choice but through Gandalf's unpondered advice, Frodo lacks much of the thoughtfulness we see in the book, and without thought, there is little to no real character left in Frodo. All his actions are undertaken seemingly by mere instinct. He is an overly trusting fool without a mind of his own to use.<P>Simply put, through Bree Frodo has been denied personality.<P>Rediscovering my hatred of Elijah Wood,<BR>Iarwain<p>[ April 27, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

Well, you can't have everything! The glass is half full for me.

We can't everything, but we can want it! For me the glass is three quarters gone... <P>Sometimes nothing's ever good enough. I was going to write something else, but my thoughts digressed, and I've just developed a plan for a completely new currency (along with realizations of the reasons for the failure of Soviet Communism). I suppose that's all for now, then.<P><BR>Iarwain

Not bad for a nights work...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I am selfish, and am concerned with my pleasure while watching the film, not whether it matches the "intetions" of Tolkien. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Yes, I'll "fourth" that. <P>I actually thought that the depiction of Bree was extremely well done in the film. Yes, it's different from Bree in the book, but don't forget that Bree in the book at that time was not exactly a safe place to be. The "Prancing Pony" is well supplied with a fair number of seemingly threatening and unsavoury characters, Strider not least among them. In fact, the Hobbits would not have been nearly so suspicious of Strider had Bree and the Prancing Pony provided a more cosy and friendly environment.<P>Jackson simply took the more threatening aspects of Bree and played them up. There are still a few of the more friendly elements in the film. Merry and Pippin seem to have no problem downing the odd pint and joining in the drinking songs. And Barliman Butterbur is much the same as the friendly host we all know and love (although, alas, with a much reduced role).<P>But, nevertheless, the sinister atmosphere is certainly emphasised by Jackson. And I think that it works well. There is a great contrast in the film between the rustic idyll of the Shire (complete with the antics of Bilbo's leaving party) and the sinister, threatening atmosphere of Bree. This is the first time that the Hobbits have left the Shire and the portrayal of Bree brings across very well the unknown dangers of the big bad world beyond it.<P>Of course, with all the complex plot development that there is in the book (the attack on the house at Crickhollow, the ancient terrors of the Old Forest and the Barrow Downs, and the presence of the likes of Bill Ferny and the squint-eyed Southerner in Bree), then such a stark contrast does not need to be painted. But the more subtle, gradual building up of the shadowy threat outside the Shire that works so well in the book would simply not have worked on screen with the limited (albeit 3 hours' worth) of time available.

Hatred? Is that what it has gotten to Iarwain?<P>You talk of "Frodo's character has been made less." That the plot complexity has been stepped down. We all know that, that is not fresh news to anyone. Every character has been made 'less' in some fashion or other, not just Frodo. Spot on, good call.<P>But I disagree with "...prevents audiences from reaching a further understanding of Frodo's character." The connection that I think is lacking here is that ANY understanding IS further understanding for the majority of the audience. Don't forget that movie Frodo is not book Frodo - could never be. These are two separate entities. Just like movie Bree is not book Bree - two separate places. Comparing the two, while interesting and entertaining, if a bit fruitless and unsatisfying, should not degrade into a debate over any individuals personal interpretation or enjoyment. Many people want the movie to be just what it was, in fact, the world is abound with movie Frodo lovers. They want more action, they want Legolas board-sliding down stairs, they want Arwen in every scene, etc... It's not a drama they go to see.<P>Everybody knows that adapted screenplays are NEVER as good as the book and that if they want more complexity then they go read the book. I bet tons of people get more complexity/nuances out of the LotR books than I do, but I get just as much enjoyment, and isn't that what it's all about?<P>Just for the record, I wanted to see Bree Hobbits also.

Ok, ok. You two have silenced me for now. (But I'll be back!!! ) I suppose I'm never going to get over my resentment of the utter degradation of plot and character depth. There's nothing that's going to come of endless arguing (at least on my part), so I might as well accept the fact that it's completely different and shut my... fingers. But, as I said, I'll be back! If not sooner, then at least by late december. Then you'll all be plagued by my rantings again. <P><BR>Until then I will remain,<BR>Iarwain<P>(Eldest that is) <P>P.S. LotR would make a wonderful television series, if enough effort was put into its production. Then everyone could be satisfied!<p>[ April 27, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>...imagine his senses of smell, sight, sound etc to be a little LSDish because of the ring's power. (especially when he wears it!) This is not a statement of right or wrong, just my experience. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Your experience involves LSD? My, my, full of surprises these nice, proper Tolkien fans are. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Rediscovering my hatred of Elijah Wood <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>What's the point of hating only Elijah? Let's hate the entire world while we're at it: the kind of world that allows for character degradation to equal huge movie grosses. Feel better now?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>LotR would make a wonderful television series, if enough effort was put into its production. Then everyone could be satisfied!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>A TV budget wouldn't be big enough. The locales would look fake. As would the Balrog. Also, they wouldn't have been able to afford so many hot actors. I like my special effects and my eye candy, thankyouverymuch.

Yes, but, with so many fantasy novels out there which are just rip offs of LotR, why make a movie of LotR & then change everything? Why not adapt some other novel? That's something I've never got. <BR>UNLESS, they were cynically trying to guarantee as large an audience as possible, by taking on such a massively popular work. In that case, don't they have SOME obligation to the readership. <BR>Also, why make such a stand about keeping the TITLE of The Two Towers & then change the story, characters, motivations?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Your experience involves LSD? My, my, full of surprises these nice, proper Tolkien fans are. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Heh, heh The old mushroom trick!<P> <p>[ April 28, 2003: Message edited by: Liriodendron ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> ... UNLESS, they were cynically trying to guarantee as large an audience as possible <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Erm, davem, yes - that is generally what the people who make films like this are trying to do. I would hardly regard it as cynical to take steps designed to acheive this.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> In that case, don't they have SOME obligation to the readership <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Not really, no. They have the rights to the films and could therefore make them as they saw fit. It makes utter sense that they did so with an eye to maximising audience numbers. <P>To be fair, however, I personally think that Jackson did try to take account of the fans, as well as his more mainstream audience, in the way that he made the films. Clearly, he was not wholly successful in this (how could he ever have been) but I honestly think that he tried.

I think the Bree scene is very good.<P>Because PJ had to cut out the Barrow Downs section, the slow build-up of darkness is lost. Also, with thier journey through the Old Forest and Barrow Downs taken out, the journey from Shire into Wild is also gone. He needed something to get the viewers attention that they were a) no longer in the Shire and b)no longer in a security blanket.<P>Making Bree much darker has achieved this perfectly. The viewers now know that the hobbits are in alien territory and do not really know what to do. The feeling of uncertainty is a good tension builder and leads up to the question of Aragorn's alignment (good or evil) much better than it would otherwise.<P>Whilst remembering the nice bits of Bree such as Butterbur, etc. we must not forget that Bree was pretty wild and a crossroads for all sorts of people. I can image another inn in Bree being just like that. And how do we know that some streets in Bree weren't like that. There are ALWAYS streets like that, just think of it as if the hobbits had taken a wrong turn.<P>In his defence, I think PJ has changed Bree to help the audience reaction and am totally in favour of the scene.<p>[ April 28, 2003: Message edited by: the real findorfin ]

Well, Saucepanman, we'll have to disagree. I think they do have a <I>moral</I> responsibility to the fans. But there we get into a difficult area - legal vs moral responsibility. Clearly, they had no legal responsibility. They could have made it into a comedy, a p**s take (I put the asterisks in myself!), or a 'dungeons & dragons' slash fest (which is my own opinion of what they did), and still be within their 'legal rights'. I simply question their moral right to do what they did to such a well loved work. What's up there on screen simply isn't the LotR that I know & love.

Bree was filled with strange folk in the books, including adventurers. Why do you think the phrase, 'strange as news from Bree'<BR>was coined? There was a mixture of hobbits and men in the town in the book, and (although you really see precious little of Bree) you oviously see a hobbit in the Inn at least. The common room was a bit more inviting, although I'd guess people were just as drunk as in the movie most of the time. The hobbits were all a bit set on edge, until they got a bit of beer in their system, so that testifies a bit to the mysteriousness or strangness of it all. To be honest, I don't think they did that bad of a job on the town. And they did a great job on Barliman Butterbur, I thought. <p>[ April 30, 2003: Message edited by: The Only Real Estel ]

No they didn't, Butterbur is forgetful, not stupid

Why do you say movie Butterbur is stupid?

Well, the first thing I thought when I saw Bree for the first time was "Where are the Hobbits?" Remember there's more in Bree than scary men. The men in book Bree weren't near as scary, and there were hobbits to lighten things up a bit, Dwarves too. (To tell you the truth, even though it wasn't the SHire, I thought Bree in the book to be quite a pleasant place, before Ringwraith mania that is) PJ could have mande Bree WAY less sinister than he did.

This is hard, I kind of agree with everybody...davem, my main criticisms of the films are also yours, I think they are too linear and too much like a computer game. But at the same time, I can see that if you cut out the Old Forest and the Barrow-wights, you can't just have the hobbits leave one jolly, cosy place (the Shire) to go to another jolly, cosy place (Bree). So, I can see why they made Bree rather more sinister than in the book. BUT, the most interesting thing about Bree was the co-existence of men and hobbits. So, I would have liked to have seen Bree hobbits drinking at the Prancing Pony. I know Butterbur seemed familiar with the breed to offer them hobbit beds, but that wasn't enough...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> (I won't say different for fear of the "artistic liscense" activists) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I have to say, usually that's me, but here I agree with you partially, Iarwain. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> He decided that it would not be a dry resting place filled with civilized folk, but rather, a more disturbing place (hobbitless of course) filled with stumbling drunkards, ferret-petting toothless giants, and hysterically laughing muddy men, apparently straight from a local gutter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well... now that you say it that way... And I also wish there were some hobbits. Then again, i wouldn't relish the sight of <I>hobbits</I> stroking ferrets. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Manner of Frodo's departure, i.e. the fact that he did not deliberate, and that the choice did not seem to be even his own. Also the directions Gandalf gave to him, which greatly affect the Hobbits' perception of Bree.<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I didn't like that either, but I certainly see why PJ might have done it. The majority of people who went to see LotR, sad though it may be, had not read the books beforehand. Some of them later did, most didn't, but that's besides the point. <I>If</I> somebody had not read the book, so obviously did not yet get their own perception of the characters, the Frodo from the books may seem a bit... well, frankly put, <I>borin</I> to them. Now please don't slit my throat for this, because I mourn over the loss of the old Frodo, no matter how much I like the new one, but it's true. A lot of my friends started reading the books and stopped. I asked them why, they said the characters were boring. As Frodo is the main character, I assume he has something to do with this. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> 2. The removal of Tom Bombadil. Tom was an assuring character that comforted the Hobbits and gave them valued advice as to the nature of Bree, its inhabitants, and the Prancing Pony itself. Without him, Bree became a mysterious, if not terrifying town of various unknowns.<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I miss ole TOm as much as anyone, but tell me how in a million years you're planning to find an actor who can sing "merry do, derry-dol, Tom Bombadillo!" etc. without making LotR a comedy film? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> 3. The blasted rain. A trivial factor, but still one which has an enourmous effect on mood and setting. The bumbling hoboes with carrots that wander the streets of bree with wet hair and faces have a revolting effect on audiences, compared to the comfortable, dry, and (mostly) friendly town that Tolkien describes in "At the Sign of the Prancing Pony". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't quite a gree. The rain makes it more ominous and strange, but it could have been just as well used to make the inside of the Pony more welcoming. It <I>wasn't</I>, but you can't really well say that that's the only thing it could be used for. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I got a thrill from the swinging sign of The Prancing Pony" in the rain. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I liked it too, but for me it went no further than that. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I am selfish, and am concerned with my pleasure while watching the film, not whether it matches the "intetions" of Tolkien. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I fifth that. But it's just that drunken laughter and spilling beer doesn't give me much pleasure <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Frodo's character has been made less. He knows things he oughtn't have during Gandalf's explaination in Bag End, and then doesn't know things he ought when he actually undertakes his journey. Since acting not out of his own choice but through Gandalf's unpondered advice, Frodo lacks much of the thoughtfulness we see in the book, and without thought, there is little to no real character left in Frodo. All his actions are undertaken seemingly by mere instinct. He is an overly trusting fool without a mind of his own to use.<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I wouldn't put it like that, because I quite like Wood's portrayal of Frodo, but it really wnnoys me what PJ does to the films. Not while I'm watching them, of course- then I enjoy it all <BR>Okay, this post is getting to be quite long, so I'm done for now <P>~Menelien

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But it's just that drunken laughter and spilling beer doesn't give me much pleasure <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Oh dear. How will you ever put up with living in a dorm?<P>*feels right at home at Bree after a year at Duke*<p>[ April 30, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]

You laugh drunkenly when your drunk. You spill beer when your drunk. When you drink a lot of beer, you get drunk. I don't see old Barly as stupid in the movies. He says the things he says in the books (for the most part). Bree wasn't that scary to me, it's just whenever you get a place with rain and 'talk of strange folk abroad', there's a chance of scariness I guess. I can't remember my main point, but oh well. <p>[ April 30, 2003: Message edited by: The Only Real Estel ]

I didn't think Bree was scary, after those horror movies the night before , but I didn't like it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote:<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>But it's just that drunken laughter and spilling beer doesn't give me much pleasure <BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>Oh dear. How will you ever put up with living in a dorm?<P>*feels right at home at Bree after a year at Duke*<P> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think I'll end up a high school dropout... <P>~ Menelien

I seem to recall Book Sam feeling pretty intimidated by his first sight of the 'tall houses of Men'. So the Hobbits aren't all *that* comfortable in Book Bree.<P> As for movie Bree. The sinister atmosphere is mostly in Frodo and Sam's heads, look at those experienced pub-crawlers Pippin and Merry, they seem right at home. In fact Pip's face lights up at the sight of the common room, clearly *he* doesn't see anything sinister about the Pony or its patrons.<P> Frodo and Sam on the other hand are worrying over what to do next and what's happened to Gandalf. No wonder the Breelanders seem threatening to them!

Yeah, after all, the only time Sam drinks beer is at partys, while he's checkiing out Rosy! <p>[ May 01, 2003: Message edited by: The Only Real Estel ]

I'm telling you, Frodo's 'tripping' on the ring! <P>Har har! Merry and Pippen do light up! They seem to take to the Prancing Pony just fine.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Frodo's character has been made less. He knows things he oughtn't have during Gandalf's explaination in Bag End, and then doesn't know things he ought when he actually undertakes his journey. Since acting not out of his own choice but through Gandalf's unpondered advice, Frodo lacks much of the thoughtfulness we see in the book, and without thought, there is little to no real character left in Frodo. All his actions are undertaken seemingly by mere instinct. He is an overly trusting fool without a mind of his own to use. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Resounding Agreement with Iarwain, here! Although it's disappointing however, I do think that it would have been <I>extremely</I> difficult to portray Frodo with his original depth in the movie. Even without his original depth, I do however, think he could have (and should have) been given much more depth. As a rule we see none of his thought, none of his resourcefulness, and none of his real goodness. So far, all I've seen from Frodo is a lot of hasty decisions, a lot of squealing for Aragorn, and a lot of despair. (Not that Wood doesn't play it well, but he plays the character as it was written, squealing and all.)<P>However, as far as the Bree scene goes, I second everything said by Findorfin about why PJ did it. But even so, I can't bring myself to agree with Liriodendron and the half-full squad. I'm the spoiled kid to whom candy doesn't taste good, and I like my Tolkien undiluted.<P>Sophia

I waited so long for a visual rendition of LoTR. I'll be dead before the next one comes. I'm hoping RoTK continues to satisfy my thirst! My "minds eye" was tired! <BR> It's funny though, when I read, or listen to the books, I always think the old images of my mind. Because the movie was different, It's easy for me to keep the movie's visuals separate from my imagination's . It's a little strange when I think about parts that the movie actually brought to "life" better than my imagination. Like....Gandalf riding the cart up to Bag End, the Argonath and the tiny boats on the river, Saruman and his palantir in that inner sanctum of Orthanc with all the lines on the floor. Of course my "minds eye" rescues me from the cruddy parts, like everything that was missing! (and the wargs! )