Can’t bring myself to read LotR or Tolkien. (On Hero Worship)

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

We don't know whether -- or if so, how often -- Frodo used it, but "I have always kept it on its chain" indicates, to me at least, that he kept it with him. Which of course raises questions about how mere "possession" affects mortals.

I'd expect Frodo to be somewhat wary of using it after Gandalf's cautions at the time of the party, and especially later, after the events in "The Shadow of the Past" chapter. Things are a little confused by Gandalf's letter:

PS. Do NOT use It again, not for any reason whatever!

When, exactly, is he supposed to have used it? I've never been able to figure out what Gandalf is referring to.

 

[Deimos]

We don't know whether -- or if so, how often -- Frodo used it, but "I have always kept it on its chain" indicates, to me at least, that he kept it with him. Which of course raises questions about how mere "possession" affects mortals.

I'd expect Frodo to be somewhat wary of using it after Gandalf's cautions at the time of the party, and especially later, after the events in "The Shadow of the Past" chapter. Things are a little confused by Gandalf's letter:

When, exactly, is he supposed to have used it? I've never been able to figure out what Gandalf is referring to.

OK, I'll make a partial concession (or two)...
1) less than stellar writing for the part of Frodo ( and Faramir, but don't get me started on THAT 🙄)
2) his aging probably was slowed a bit, tho' not as much as Bilbo's

Still, he struck me as 'way too young. Pippin looked about the age he should have , as did Merry.
Sam (Sean Astin) struck me as being older than EW Frodo, by at least 4-5 years.
In fact Sam look closer to what was a realistic age for him, maybe a few years a younger than was correct.
But EW.... nope... didn't work for me at all. But the other, and hardly insignificant, reason (imo, of course) is that he isn't that good of an actor, or rather at least in LOTR his acting wasn't that good.
Anyway...pax... we will have to agree to disagree on this 😉.

 

[Tyelkormo the Fair]

But he wasn't 33 (21) when he left Hobbiton, he was 50.
The ratio (33 /21) is 1.5:1.
21 x 1.5 = 31.5 or alternately ... 50 / 1.5 = 33

Technically the movies didn't cover those 16-17 years, so this whole argument is null.

 

[Deimos]

Technically the movies didn't cover those 16-17 years, so this whole argument is null.

Whose fault is that? I won't mention any names but his initials are Peter Jackson.
Another "unnecessary" adaptation; he could have easily structured the timeline to coincide with canon.

 

[Ent]

Ent senses "perceptions and perspectives" at work in much of the above exchange.
It would seem we've entered 'the realm of Tolkien and Middle-earth' again, where all thing are, or are not, and perhaps not all things are as they seem.
(or maybe they are.)

it would perhaps have been "nice" to have somehow physically depicted the differences in age among the 4 Holbytla in LoTR - but for "the vast crowd of watchers" (which was the movie's only real intent) the distinction would have been lost. They don't know the books anyway.

PJ "did fairly well" in their depiction by how he developed the characters of each, showing their relative mental maturity and life perspective - which was somewhat consistent with Tolkien's characters.

It's a tough thing, pulling all the pieces together in a movie. And it's a tougher thing nailing the "perspective" of each observer.
As we can see in any post on this forum, our perspectives are rather well developed based on our 'inner view' of things - the only measuring stick we have to use. And each of us has a different measuring stick by default. Our 'pictures' are developed by someone else's 'words' thus interpretive.

Thwack - there you have it. Another Entymological Engagement with things at large.

 

[Deimos]

Ent senses "perceptions and perspectives" at work in much of the above exchange.
It would seem we've entered 'the realm of Tolkien and Middle-earth' again, where all thing are, or are not, and perhaps not all things are as they seem.
(or maybe they are.)

it would perhaps oave been "nice" to have somehow physically depicted the differences in age among the 4 Holbytla in LoTR - but for "the vast crowd of watchers" (which was the movie's only real intent) the distinction would have been lost. They don't know the books anyway.

PJ "did fairly well" in their depiction by how he developed the characters of each, showing their relative mental maturity and life perspective - which was somewhat consistent with Tolkien's characters.

It's a tough thing, pulling all the pieces together in a movie. And it's a tougher thing nailing the "perspective" of each observer.
As we can see in any post on this forum, our perspectives are rather well developed based on our 'inner view' of things - the only measuring stick we have to use. And each of us has a different measuring stick by default. Our 'pictures' are developed by someone else's 'words' thus interpretive.

Thwack - there you have it. Another Entymological Engagement with things at large.

This way of thinking , in general, to me comes dangerously close to: " I don't have to do the best I am capable of because no one will notice it, whether I do or I don't."
I do wood working.** An old guy (even older than I 😄) said, "The mark of a true craftsman is when you manage/ treat the part of a project that no one sees with the same care and attention to detail that you would if it were visible to all observers. "

** I began WW when I retired 9 years ago... and I am still considered a novice.

 

[Ent]

This way of thinking , in general, to me comes dangerously close to: " I don't have to do the best I am capable of because no one will notice it, whether I do or I don't."

Ah, my dear Deimos - I don't disagree with you.
But we cannot place the 'reality of the few' upon the 'reality of the many.'
Nor can we assume PJ even realized the differences in their age - or most of the rest of the participants for that matter.

Then, we have to weigh that against the objectives of the film. etc. etc.

I am not saying what would have been 'right' or 'wrong' or 'inoccuous' one way or another.
I am simply stating what IS. And what IS, is what we got.

One entity may insist on greater fidelity and more exacting consideration. Another may be satisfied with such things as they have received.

Who is correct, and who is incorrect?

I would postulate the answer to that question is also a matter of "perspective" - while levying the caution that we not allow it to descend to "opinion."

PJ did what he did. Forever, it will have been OK for some, and not OK for others, to varying degrees.

Ent has simply elected to "be satisfied with such things as he has." Does this mean Ent doesn't see things he wishes were different? Not in the least.
After all, the greatest tragedies in the work exist in bunny-pulled-sleds, skiing off Oliphaunt trunks, and sledding down masonry stairs on a shield and the like.

Ent simply chooses to look at what he finds pleasant in the matter, accept that it is what it is, and knows in the future (should things allow for a future) there will be knock-offs made which will most likely present an even greater pallette of ills for many to speak to. (Remakes are rarely as good as the first takes.)

All things have their place. Again, after all, look at the 1939 Wizard of Oz movie - a remake of at least 3 earlier efforts itself.
Drastically different than the books - and inconsistent even within itself. Yet it holds a very large place in people's hearts - yes, people completely unfamiliar with the books.

Entymologically, I can only repeat what I always say - (Yes, I'm a broken record) - we Ents hope to learn to enjoy things for what they are - i.e. the good they contain - rather than dig into what they are not.

After all - the world itself is tainted by the discord of Melkor and has not yet been remade. What else can we expect?

 

[Ricardo]

Interesting we are talking about the age of the hobbits in the movies. Something that never bothered me (which is a bonus for PJ), the only thing that bothered me about the hobbits is that I really didn't like Elijah Woods as Frodo.

But there was another age issue that did bother me, the elves.

Cate Blanchet and Hugo Weaving were great in their roles, but they didn't look at all as I expected Galadriel and Elrond look.

by the time of LOTR, Elrond was over 6500 years old, and Galadriel much older, however elves don't age, or age very, very, very slowly. I would have expected them to look much younger, like the way Legolas, Haldir or Arwen looked. Elrond clearly looked older than Arwen but he didn't, maybe they wanted to clearly show the father-daughter relationship but that's not what Tolkien said.

Anyway, it bothered ME, not necessarily a big deal.

I must add that since the movies are a visual representation of the stories, the actors portraying the characters should look as close as possible as Tolkien described them.

In one of my multiple "I am bored" moments, I asked ChatGPT to cast Idril and Luthien based exclusively on looks (not necessarily about beauty but looking like Tolkien described them as well as fitting their personalities)

After a bit of tinkering the verdict were

Luthien: Alexandra Daddario
Idril: Florence Pugh.

What's your issue with Elijah Wood?

I know the question isn't directed to me. But I too have issues with that casting.

I said it before, and this can be totally a personal view, but I would like the actors portraying the characters to not only act well, but to look like the image I have of them from Tolkien.

That's why I didn't like Cate Blanchett as Galadriel or Hugo Weaving as Elrond, they looked too old and as elves they would look younger.

Back to Frodo, one problem was that he looked like a teenager, younger that the other 3 hobbits although he was the oldest.

Second, and this is not Elijah Woods's fault, I didn't like the frequent screaming, but that's just me.

On the positive side, I think some characters portrays were great: Gandalf, Saruman, Boromir. Faramir looked like Faramir but didn't act as Faramir.

Of course the best cast in the entire trilogy was Gollum.

Worst: Sauron (the eye).

 

[Valandil]

Why do you care what others think, say, or post? Read or don’t. No need to make excuses or push false blame onto anyone.

 

[Vardarianna]

Yeah, well, I've lost count of the Reddit posts I've seen that begin with something like "I'm a huge Tolkien fan; I've watched the movies many times, but never read the books, and was wondering--" 🙄

I usually don't bother reading those any more.

They are Peter Jackson fans, not Tolkien fans.

Cate Blanchet and Hugo Weaving were great in their roles, but they didn't look at all as I expected Galadriel and Elrond look.

I agree, especially in Elrond's case. That said, I did think Cate presented better as Galadriel in the White Council scenes in the Hobbit movie, but she never quite grabbed me as 'Galadrielish' I guess.

That said, I don't really have too much problem with the casting overall. Where things get let down no matter who was cast is the screenplay. 🤮

 

[Ricardo]

They are Peter Jackson fans, not Tolkien fans.


I agree, especially in Elrond's case. That said, I did think Cate presented better as Galadriel in the White Council scenes in the Hobbit movie, but she never quite grabbed me as 'Galadrielish' I guess.

That said, I don't really have too much problem with the casting overall. Where things get let down no matter who was cast is the screenplay. 🤮

I agree the screenplay is more important. But I believe the actors not only need to play their part well, they need to look like the characters and they certainly didn't. Galadriel looked like a middle age matriarch, she was actually very, very, very old but you would have looked very young, so would Elrond.

I've been playing around with sites trying to cast the Silmarillion and I always go with actors/actresses that look like Tolkien's descriptions, of course, nobody looks like Luthien, but as close as possible.

And please, please, please, get rid of the pointed ears.