How sad when even cats get over excited about money!

I hope this is not a sign of things to come. My kids are already draining my resources.

Oh well, I don't have a cat anymore. So unless my dog finds out, I should still be able to make my mortgage payments...

Luckily, my dog does not like cats. Not saying that that's neighborly or anything, but at least he won't hear about things I don't want him to hear about!

Oh goodness gracious me! Isn't life complicated enough already?

Odo

The cat is probably just excited at the idea of buying food or catnip.

He looks well fed and well off - I bet it's the catnip! Send him off into the real world to catch his own food - get him off the drugs! (I understand now why he's so darn happy! )

Odo

No posts here in ages so hopefully I might spark some by commenting on some points.
On the issue of a younger Frodo I don't think Tolkien would have minded as I believe it's in keeping with the book. The youthfulness of both Bilbo and Frodo is commented upon by the worthies of Hobbiton and its source is of course the ring. If a hobbit matures at 33 that would be a human equivalent to 18-21 and it is at this youthful hobbit age Frodo comes into possession of the ring and his ageing slows. In the film he looks young before he gets the ring but he is the hobbit equivalent of a human about to leave his teenage years and the film skips the intervening 17yrs Gandalf is away so he should look like he's just out his teenage years. I think on film you best get that across by casting younger than the characters years but in keeping with the character of the original which is clearly youthful of spirit at the beginning.
On the point of Jackson making Bree a "darker" place, although I think Tolkien would have disliked seeing Bree portrayed that way, he would have understood why it was done. Like many of the changes it has its roots in the book itself, in this case the idea that refugees are coming north from the south lands- a problem more acute in the books in the months after the hobbits leave than at the time when they are there and before it turns to trouble ;"Some folk killed, killed dead!." Jackson seems to have used this idea to represent Bree as being over full, with the streets heaving with disreputable refugees in worn clothing. Therefore I think even where Tolkien would most likely disagree with a change he would have some respect for Jackson trying to represent the ideas. From a film point of view it also helps build up a sense of possible danger for the heroes which is present in the book in the characters of Bill Ferny and the squint eyed southerner- characters difficult to introduce at that point in the film narrative as a threat.
On the Bombadil issue I too would leave it out of an adaption but believe Tolkien would fight to keep it in. I would be sorely tempted however to find a way to include the Old Forest and the Barrow Downs, if only because the sword given to Merry and which he uses on the Witch King was forged for just that purpose in the days of the Necromancer- and its just that sort of tiny detail which gives Lord of the Rings its sense of depth and which hints at the religous questions underpinning much of LOTR in terms of free will versus fate and which I am sure Tolkien would be loathe to lose.
On the splitting of the narrative lines v's intermixing the scenes in Two Towers- I mentioned on another thread I'd edited the films for my own pleasure, and when it came to the Two Towers I first tried laying it out as the book does- one of the benefits of this is that the later Mouth of Sauron scene works properly as neither Gandalf nor the audience know if Frodo is alive or dead or where the ring is. However to watch as a film, because of the disparate lengths given to the Aragorn, Pippin etc line and the Frodo, Sam line, when you reach the point where Aragorn line ends its 1hr 50 in and then Frodo line starts and it feels way to long to watch another 1hr 10. Inter-cutting the scenes however works far better in terms of pacing the film but it does lose the sense of journey and emotional attachment the separate stories provide. So I think in the end I would come down -though I think Tolkien would stick to the high ground and defend the thematic value-on the side of inter-cutting because it suits the medium of film better, but with reservations.
I surprisingly found I like the Arwen scenes, even her replacing of Glorfindel makes perfect film sense if not any narrative sense but would have kept all her scenes in Fellowship and Return and in Two Towers just stuck with Aragorn having the odd moment of pinning- which the story line with Eowyn gives perfect scope for. I think Tolkien would not have minded the injection of the love story into the main story- something he wanted but could not find a fit for-but he may have found the means used often objectionable. I reckon he may have found a way if he'd lived to see the films.
On Aragorn the big question is would Tolkien alter him to be more the reluctant king of Jacksons version? - I'm sure Tolkien would see this makes Aragorn a more sympathetic character to an audience and whilst I doubt he would have rewritten him to be more like Jacksons, he may have brought more of the genuine conflicts Aragorn does have more to the fore.
Oh and one other thing Jackson (Weta really) does well but would not/could not effect the writing is Middle Earth itself. I think Tolkien would have loved to see the world, to have seen Minas Tirith up there on the screen; the Balrog and Gandalf on the Bridge of Khazad-Dum, Gollum sneaking up on the hobbits, the Charge of the Rohirrim on the Pelannor Fields, the Witch-King rising from the ruins of his mount, whatever his reservations about the adaptions.
Well that's everything I can think of off the top of my head so here's hoping its sparked enough interest.

Essays are awesome , but they are easier to read and respond to if broken into paragraphs .

GB

Lol a fair point GB- but despite when it says I posted last message it was in fact 4 in morning so was bit of a late night ramble hence the unwieldy length- I will try for more brevity in future!

I love essay posts. Some comments, broken down point-by-point with quotes:



If we accept that 33=18-21 I would agree with the rest of your paragraph, but I'm not sure about that. I don't really think that humans mature at 18-21 (most humans at that age that I've met haven't matured, at least). While hobbits may mature somewhat slower than humans, I doubt the difference is quite that large.



Your points are well thought-out, but I think that it was made darker for a different reason. In the book the Old Forest and the Barrow-downs are the hobbits' first experience outside of the Shire and a dangerous experience. It establishes just how lost they are while in the outside world and is really their first step on the road that will ultimately lead them to greater strength and autonomy, culminating in their liberation of the Shire without the help of anyone else. Obviously the end of these character arcs was removed in the film, but that first step remains, albeit in altered form. The hobbits' first post-Shire experience in the films is Bree, and Bree is consequently darker and more dangerous.

However, while I think I understand why the change was made, I still would have liked to see the Bree of the books.



I've thought about this and, to be honest, I think the Bombadil scenes would have been very hard to work into the film. I agree about the Old Forest and the Barrow-downs though, but since Bombadil was important in rescuing the hobbits in the Barrow-downs it would be good to have him. Perhaps in an abbreviated role compared to the book. This one is difficult for me.



Tolkien did say that he thought the storylines should remain separate in Letter 210, and he mentioned that they are pretty much unrelated (Books III and IV were only grouped together because the published wanted to print LotR in three volumes, after all) and in markedly different settings. I can understand those points but I too would have them intercut, though for a slightly different reason. I simply don't think that you can have a long developing storyline and climax in a film and then stop and begin a whole new storyline with its own climax. It would be jarring and would bifurcate the film very noticeably.




I think the reason Tolkien could not find a way to insert the love story into the main narrative is because the love story was only marginally related. The bulk of it took place years before the LotR. Besides, Aragorn is, to be blunt, not the main character. The focus of LotR is on the hobbits, and while Aragorn is certainly a major character, I think he got far too much screentime in PJ's films.

About Arwen replacing Glorfindel: I don't mind it so much compared to other changes, but I would rather have not had any elf shown up and let Frodo ride the whole way to the Fords of Bruinen on his own. At least then he could have shown a bit more spirit than a sack of a potatoes. I would have given Arwen a scene or two in Imladris though, even though that wasn't in the book. A few lines of description by the narrator works in a book, but you need dialogue and character interaction in a film (unless you want someone narrating via voiceover throughout the film ).



I don't think it made Aragorn seem more sympathetic, it made him seem like a whiny emo kid. Seriously, "I will not take the Ring within 100 leagues of your city!"? Way to keep the Fellowship working together in difficult times. Aragorn had some moments of doubt in the book, and I think that was plenty. Besides, as I mentioned above, PJ gave far too much attention to Aragorn.

I also stand by my statement in my first post that Tolkien would not have changed anything because of the movies.

Thank you for your very detailed post, I've enjoyed responding to it.

Thanks for the responses.
On the points raised by Eldorion, a full and thoroughly enjoyable response, I had not considered the removal of Barrowdowns etc to be a factor in the matter of a darker Bree, but I think you are absolutely spot on.
On inter-cutting you sum up what I was trying to say about the problem of having two seperate tales better than I did, and I concur with your assessment.
With Arwen I would have liked to see more use of the places in the story where Tolkien gives parts of the history-admittedly few and far between but they exist- at Lothlorien when Frodo has a vision of Aragorn betrothing his love to Arwen dressed in white would be one example. And on Aragorn himself, I find in the books after Rivendell Aragorn would seem somewhat arrogant to a modern audience presented as written. He often lists his long credentials, he appears outwardly to suffer few doubts and none about his right or destiny- which is fine in book where his character is given depth and reason for him to seem "grim" but perhaps doesn't work so well on film.

I don't have my books handy, but I don't think Frodo's vision, such as it was, was particularly detailed or revealing of Aragorn's character. If I'm mistaken please correct me with a quote, but as far as I recall the account of Aragorn's and Arwen's betrothal occurs only in Appendix A.



I agree that Aragorn might seem rather arrogant (he seemed like that even in the book to me), but that's simply what his character is. He's not constantly arrogant or unpleasant though. I see no reason to change a character just to make him more 'palatable'. There will always be people who dislike the characters one way or another, but I would rather see the true characters.

I'm not really sure why the true character of Aragorn wouldn't work as well on film as in the book. We learn most of Aragorn's backstory in the appendices, so I don't think there is as big a difference in room for depth between book and film. For that matter, the film actually gave Aragorn's character far more time for development, especially in FOTR.

Hi Eldorion, if you'll forgive the indulgence in Tolkiens beautiful prose I will give the passage I was thinking of regards Aragorn/Arwen;

"He (Aragorn) was wrapped in some fair memory: and as Frodo looked at him he knew that he beheld things as they once had been in this same place. For the grim years were removed from the face of Aragorn, and he seemed clothed in white, a young lord tall and fair; and he spoke words in the Elvish tongue to one whom Frodo could not see. Arwen vanimelda, namarie! he said, and then he drew a breath..."here is the heart of Elvendom on earth...and here my heart dwells ever."

My point really was that if you are going to have the story of Aragorn and Arwen in the film then I would have preferred if PJ had used the source material as a guide for where to place it more.

On the point of leaving Aragorn alone I too prefer the Aragorn of the book, I found the idea of him being a reluctant king fearful of the blood in his veins weak and a cheap way to create a bit of drama out of the character- I didn't mean to imply Tolkien would adopt such means if he had seen the film only that it might have made him think of places where perhaps he could have presented Aragorn in more sympathetic light and less like a "noble horse" as one critic put it.