 by -
mellonquendi
(Tue Apr 29 08:14:49)
|
|
 UPDATED Tue Apr 29 08:43:26 |
Alright, I admit. I just wanted to create an intellectually sounding topic  .
No but seriously, though. I was wondering how everyone feels about this. I'm basically talking about things (dialogue mainly) that appear in the movie(s) that don't belong in Tolkien's Middle-Earth or within his way or style of writing.
Alright a couple of examples. The other day I was listening to the audio commentary of fotr:ee again, and well, IanMckellen was talking about how they were considering having him eat toffees instead of smoking a pipe!
You see, they were afraid they would get complaints from anti-smoking organisations or whatever. So, Gandalf in that scenario would have given up smoking, and only sinned when sitting with Bilbo on that hill in the Shire. But then at Rivendell he would have his bag of toffees with him again. I mean, can you believe that? It's very funny for a parody/satire or something, but to seriously put it in the official LOTR-movie... rediculous. What do you think?
Well, and then there's the tossing dwarves-thing, of course. Even though I did feel it wasn't exactly appropriate (for [Tolkien's] LOTR), I didn't mind that much (and it was kinda funny).
So how do you feel about these things? Do you think the screenwriter should add as little as possible, and if he does that it should be in Tolkien's spirit, without any modernisation (adding contemporary puns etc., making it relevant for today's audience). Or do you feel the screenwriter has liberties (or even obligations?) to 'update' some dialogue or events in order to make the movie(s) enjoyable and understandable for today's audience? And, where do you draw the line?
For the record, I'm not really talking about elves at Helm's Deep here, or Aragorn taking a tumble of the cliff. But more about 'updates' like Gandalf's toffees and the tossing of dwarves.
Can you think of any more of these kind of dialogue-scenes or other instances which are clearly not (from) Tolkien? Which ones do you think work? And which ones don't?
'Shh! Gandalf's thinking.'
|
|
|
I think some changes are fine. Really, some of Prof. Tolkien's dialogue is somewhat stilted (*cowers* please don't hit me!). It "reads" fine, but I don't know how well it translates to screen.
On the other hand, changing a story so as not to offend our modern sensiblities is just silly (I'm talking about the smoking, the Frodo-Sam Master-Servant relationship, divine right v democracy).
I thought it was funny, for example, the George Lucas made Amadala a queen, but then stressed that she lived in a democracy. Silly, if you ask me. I sort of liked it in the original Star Wars where it seemed that Princess Leia was part of a monarchy that also functioned within the boundaries of a galactic democracy. Lucas, though, has a burning desire to make everything PC.
I guess what I am saying is that I see a big difference between changing some dialogue to "be more modern," and changing story to be more politically correct. I have no problem with the former, which PJ did some of, but I take issues with the latter which I don't believe PJ did. I just don't think its fair to judge people of a different time and place by our own standards.
last and proudest, Imrahil, Prince of Dol Amroth...
|
|
|
Verilly I scowl, like a pig caught in a trap, at your unabashed claim that the great Professor should be accused of writing dialogue that could be stilted. How dare you sir! Pistols at dawn! I demand satisfaction!
nin guren nin ant an anna sui im iest
|
|
|
Real men duel with blades.
The road goes ever on and on
Down from the door where it began.
|
|
|
I actually got Narsil. It surprised me the weight of it and also how much it vibrates in the hand. It was unexpected. I pick it up every now and then, but I don't intend to use it.
nin guren nin ant an anna sui im iest
|
|
|
Your sword... vibrates.  Just what kind of "sword" is Narsil?!
last and proudest, Imrahil, Prince of Dol Amroth...
|
|
|
Darth, I had no idea you had such a dirty mind. 
If it's actually made of spring steel, I imagine it could vibrate.
I've never held a spring steel blade myself, so I wouldn't know.
The road goes ever on and on
Down from the door where it began.
|
|
|
I can think of one that doesn't work for me. That's the bit when one of the Uruks (I think it's either Grishnakh or Ugluk) says, "Looks like meat's back on the menu boys!". Even though it is Orc-Speech it just sounds wildly non-Tolkien to me.
The important thing is what I Am Becoming.
|
|
|
You are right. That line stands out like a sore thumb as completely out of place in the movie. I cringe at that line. But it must be said that it follows a pattern similar to PJ doing cameo's in his films. I seem to recall a similarly offending line in the first movie. Warning, for those of sensitive disposition, I am about to do THAT line again, ok, warnings over. "Lambas! One bit is enough to fill the stomach of a grown man!" I am just glad that they dropped the second part of the line... "And reasonably priced direct from Weta Kitchens".
nin guren nin ant an anna sui im iest
|
|
|
| by -
Belethiel
(Tue Apr 29 10:46:27)
|
|
| UPDATED Tue Apr 29 10:46:57 |
I third that
 And you have my beaux
|
|
|
| by -
GaugeMistress
(Tue Apr 29 08:53:40)
|
|
| UPDATED Tue Apr 29 08:54:09 |
I took the toffee-chewing comment to just mean "some kind of chewy candy", which wouldn't be anachronistic -- I don't imagine PJ would have Gandalf crinkling little plastic wrap or calling it toffee.
The dwarf-tossing thing wasn't meant as a reference to the more modern phrase, though that was pointed out to them. You could take it as an in-joke, or argue about PJ's use of humor, but I don't see how it conflicts with the Middle Earth timeline.
I think Tar-Atanamir has a point (above), at least about the line not fitting in well with the way many people conceptualize orcs. Still, even though our word menu dates from the 1800's, Middle Earth has inns and taverns from which people order.
"If you're not for yourself, then who will be for you? If you're only for yourself, what are you?"
|
|
|
Well I wasn't saying that the line shouldn't be in because of the possible existence (or non-existence) of a word, just that it didn't really seem something that any creature in Middle-Earth would say. As far as I can see it, they could have done it without any pithy line in there - just have Uruk #1 lopping off the other's head and then a big roar or something...well, I don't know, but I really think that line was an unnecessary and failed attempt at some sort of black humour.
The important thing is what I Am Becoming.
|
|
|
I agree with that. Not a shining moment from the films in my opinion.
"If you're not for yourself, then who will be for you? If you're only for yourself, what are you?"
|
|
|
| by -
mellonquendi
(Tue Apr 29 14:00:37)
|
|
| UPDATED Tue Apr 29 16:35:36 |
I took the toffee-chewing comment to just mean "some kind of chewy candy", which wouldn't be anachronistic -- I don't imagine PJ would have Gandalf crinkling little plastic wrap or calling it toffee.
My point is that having Gandalf chewing candy and giving up smoking because it is 'bad' for you, is (would have been) clearly a modern/contemporary addition, put in there solely to give the right message to children (and adults) today. McKellen himself said that he kinda liked it since it would show that 'a lot has changed since then' which is pretty much admitting that it is anachronistic.
And even if it wouldn't have literally been called toffee, but would be a 'chewy candy'...: do you recall anyone chewing candy in LOTR (or the silmarillion or the hobbit)? I mean, I haven't read the books many times yet, so I might have missed something (and this is not meant in a sarcastic way). But my point is, even though you might 'conclude' (after analyzing the industries and climate etc.) that people in Middle-earth could be capable of producing 'chewy candy' (technically), would Tolkien ever have a character chewing candy? Especially a wizard.
I think Tar-Atanamir has a point (above), at least about the line not fitting in well with the way many people conceptualize orcs.
This conceptualization is exactly what I'm talking about (in my 2nd point about Gandalf's candy chewing). (just replace 'orcs' by 'wizards')
The dwarf-tossing thing wasn't meant as a reference to the more modern phrase, though that was pointed out to them. You could take it as an in-joke, or argue about PJ's use of humor, but I don't see how it conflicts with the Middle Earth timeline.
First, not a reference to the more modern phrase? Well, maybe we have different phrases in mind, but it is obviously meant as a reference to the sport of dwarf-tossing. That's why it is so funny... Btw, I don't know what you mean by 'though that was pointed out to them'. What was pointed out and to whom?
Anyway, it was clearly a pun PJ came up with (that is even said on the commentary). And here again, maybe, just maybe, there were some practices in Middle-earth during the third age (or first or second) we don't know of, involving tossing dwarves (which would explain his apathy towards it), or otherwise it might be imaginable in some hypothetic way, but again my point is: does it belong to the sensibility of the story and the writer? Would Tolkien have ever used such a phrase or described such an event? I doubt it. PJ and Philippa Boyens actually literally say on the commentary: 'Very un-Tolkien' and 'Distinctly un-Tolkien'. (I admit though, that this one is a bit tricky since not everybody is aware of the sport called dwarf-tossing, so for them it might just show that Gimli doesn't like to be tossed, and instead be independent, not asking for help [which could teach them about characteristics of Dwarves in general]).
So, do you think these examples fit seamlessly into (the time and place of) Middle-Earth? You think that candy chewing wizards who have given up smoking aren't unusual? (why should an immortal Maia be worrying about his health?)
Anyway, if you believe this then I understand where you're coming from, but otherwise let's just stop talking semantics and start working on the practicality/purpose of this thread (i.e. thinking about examples that clearly do not naturally belong to Tolkien's 'universe' and style and whether or not these changes work or don't work and why).
Anyway, I'm not trying to bash you or whatever (almost said 'rob you'  ). I just wanted to clear up some things, that's all.
'Shh! Gandalf's thinking.'
|
|
|
I think perhaps I focused on the "anachronism" part of the original post more than you had intended. I can see definite arguments with whether any of these lines fit (for and against); I just wouldn't have said that being out-of-place in the timeline was the problem. (Particularly since Middle Earth bears resemblance to and borrows from several historical time periods and isn't strongly and definitively set in any particular year of modern history.)
My point is that having Gandalf chewing candy and giving up smoking because it is 'bad' for you, is (would have been) clearly a modern/contemporary addition, put in there solely to give the right message to children (and adults) today. McKellen himself said that he kinda liked it since it would show that 'a lot has changed since then' which is pretty much admitting that it is anachronistic.
Any focus on the health issue would have been time-displaced in my opinion, and just not right. (Ian McKellan did mention references to trying to quit, which I just think would be hard to integrate.) I was thinking more that PJ wanted to just compromise by skirting the issue by having Gandalf just chewing on something instead. (Hobbits always have something or another in their mouths, it seems. There's nothing new about chewiness or sweetness.) That would have felt like a distinct loss (no pipe?!?), but I didn't see the time displacement.
First, not a reference to the more modern phrase? Well, maybe we have different phrases in mind, but it is obviously meant as a reference to the sport of dwarf-tossing. That's why it is so funny... Btw, I don't know what you mean by 'though that was pointed out to them'. What was pointed out and to whom?
Probably just my error, here. My memory indicates that the discussion centered on one of the writers knowing the phrase and another one having incongruously never heard of it. But perhaps I need to listen to the commentary again. (Not a bad idea, in fact.  ) As a pun, it has a dual meaning, and one of the meanings (which isn't about the sport, but simply about the desire not be tossed) does seem plausible to me. (How it works for humor is a valid source for contention.) It's also a perfectly valid viewpoint that in-jokes and dual meanings of this sort throw off the rhythm of the dialogue. They're fine with me, but it's a reasonable objection.
[L]et's just stop talking semantics and start working on the practicality/purpose of this thread
I would have thought that the practicality/purpose of the thread would be open to differing interpretations and opinions. However, I can see that it failed to contribute from your perspective. I appreciate your taking the time to respond, and I apologize for what must have read as an out-of-place post to you.
Hope you can think of some interesting examples/comments for this thread...
Bummer that my first comments weren't interesting.  "Let's see if you can do better" is not the most welcoming of invitations. It is your thread, though, and I'm sure you mean well.
"If you're not for yourself, then who will be for you? If you're only for yourself, what are you?"
|
|
|
I would have thought that the practicality/purpose of the thread would be open to differing interpretations and opinions.
Of course, I'm sorry if I came off as not respecting people's (or in particular your) interpretations. It was not meant like this. I just got the idea that you didn't understand what I was trying to say. That, if I perhaps would have named the thread differently, you would have had less objections. I got the feeling that you were trying to point out the nature/definiton of an anachronism to me, rather than discussing these 'modernisations' (or what seems to me like modernisations) and as to whether or not u think they fit in the movie (and/or if you can think of more examples)
But it seems we are getting some discussion going after all. Anyway, it's probably just me. It's possible that I need to lighten up a bit. Cos sometimes something feels like an 'attack' to me, while there may be no reason for it. I guess I'm kinda sensitive in that way sometimes.
Bummer that my first comments weren't interesting. "Let's see if you can do better" is not the most welcoming of invitations. It is your thread, though, and I'm sure you mean well.
Really , u gotta believe me, that was not meant in the way you interpreted it. It was actually meant in a positive way. I meant that I wouldn't want you to stop posting/replying because of my critical response to you. Cos even though I wanted to point out my intentions to you, I also wanted to keep the actual discussion going, and wanted to hear any further ideas or comments you may have. So, I actually wanted to encourage you to reply and/or to keep posting stuff. It turns out I achieved pretty much the opposite. I'm sorry, really . I should have phrased it differently. (in fact I'm going to delete the line from my post right now...)
But anyway, thanks for your reply to my comments.
I'll try to act less uptight and overly sensitive 
Friends?
'Shh! Gandalf's thinking.'
|
|
|
That's just so nice of you to respond this way! I was just browsing as another thread devolved into one-up-manship, and thinking, "Bleah -- nothing's come out well from me, and apparently these other people that I like to read aren't having the best day either." But I'm glad I checked here one more time. Honestly, I usually try to be a little more constructive than my original post.
This may be a little rushed, since I have to be out the door soon, but here are some more thoughts. I'm afraid these are very subjective impressions on my part.
In the introduction of Merry and Pippin, the post-explosion make-up felt a little out of place to me. It's not the explosion -- our word gunpowder goes back to the 15th century, and the Chinese were using it nearly 3000 years ago. Magic causes explosions (and so does Saruman's gunpowder). It's that the particular charred-face lightning-hair felt a little like it belonged more in a more cartoon-like children's book illustration, or like something that might seem a little out-of-place as time goes by. As I said, very subjective, and largely a matter of how it happens to strike you upon first impression. I also see that it was a cute joke.
I realize that the film makes use of different UK accents to give regionality and flavor to the characters, and that rounded out the characters in a very positive way for me. However, the orcish accent (or perhaps just some of the lines) just don't work as well into the flow of the story for me. Again, it's not so much a specific logical fault as a disruption of the feeling of continuity for me personally.
Here's something I was afraid of that PJ didn't do -- more Matrix style in the fighting, music, or camera movement. I am a huge Matrix fan, and can't wait for the next movie to come out. However, I feel that some recent films have attempted to incorporate some of its style with incongruous results. It would have been a particularly unfortunate direction for LOTR to have gone.
"If you're not for yourself, then who will be for you? If you're only for yourself, what are you?"
|
|
|
Hey, nice to see you again .
Yes, I agree, the post-explosion shot does look rather cartoonish (it took about 40 minutes to make them look that way, btw. Which is not really that long, but still some nice trivia ). But I didn't mind it. I laughed and it didn't take me out of the (flow of the) story. Also I like their accents and lines right before they shoot off the dragon-rocket. 'You're supposed to stick it in the ground' 'It is in the ground' 'Outside' 'It was your idea'.
(And then the story about Billy Boyd shrieking like a girl when it explodes since he thought they would do the explosion-bit later, is also pretty funny)
Yep, loved the accents myself too. Especially those of Merry and Pippin (Irish, right?). And even though the orcish accent (or rather non-accent. Although, doesn't every language have an accent, basically? Hmm...) didn't bother me, I would have liked to see some 'true' orc-language being used (like they did with the elves). You know, something like: 'ugluk u bagronk sha pushdug Saruman-glob bubhosh skai'. (I looked it up...). Ok, orcs do not actually have a proper language, they use a mix of other languages, like Black Speech and Westron and then give their own twist to it, but yeah, you know what I mean. (but on the other hand, isn't that often how languages are created, by taking elements of other, existing languages?)
So yeah, too bad they didn't include some of that. Or otherwise, they could have at least make it sound really ugly and orc-like.
Definitely agree with you here. So glad PJ didn't do any Matrix-style shots or effects or anything. It would have been really out of place. Imagine for a second Aragorn fighting a wraight at Weathertop by jumping up, pausing in the air, the shot moving around him (done by setting up a ring of still camera's) and then giving the wraight a devastating kick.
Or, what would you think about Lurtz throwing that knife/dagger at Aragorn (at Amon Hen) and then using slow motion, perhaps adding some 'speed-trail' of the knife, and then (after making about a semi-circle with the camera), Aragorn knocking the knife away with his sword.
Or how about the showdown at Isengard, having Gandalf and Saruman jumping at each other with the shot moving around them (like in my first example) with the wizards hovering in the air.
Hmm, actually that's kinda funny 
No but seriously, it is so good that they used the effects, camera movements and music only to tell the story. PJ found the proper style and tone for all these elements. I think they formed a great synergy in the movie(s). (well, maybe they could have cut one or two of those sweeping helicopter shots, but that's all).
And don't get me wrong, I really like the Matrix myself too, and love the style they used. But you know, it fits that particular movie.
Btw, you use interesting angles to your comments I must say  . are you studying (or have you studied) history, etymology of languages, anthropology or something like that? Cos well, you seem to have a lot of knowledge in that area. Just wondering...
'Shh! Gandalf's thinking.'
|
|
|
Hi again!
Yep, I'm a sucker for an Irish accent, and I'm guilty of repeatedly replaying clips of Billy Boyd speaking. I've recently come to the conclusion that I'll have to be careful about this -- I'll smile along with dubious arguments and even stupid commercials if they come with just the right accent and voice. 
Those are generous guesses about my academic pursuits. Thank you! I have a hobbyist's interest in words, language, and psychology (with a focus on cognitive and neurological models rather than pathology -- more "How do humans acquire language?" than "What's he trying to prove with that flashy car?" ). I'm a mathematician by training and a programmer/engineer by profession, but deep inside me there's this multi-lingual museum tour guide waiting to come out. A girl can dream...
"If you're not for yourself, then who will be for you? If you're only for yourself, what are you?"
|
|
|
I noticed an interesting difference when I listened to “The Lord of the Rings” read on audio-cassette and compared it to the printed work. It was nearly a word-for-word recitation, but I noticed that whereas Tolkien had abstained from using contractions almost religiously, the audio tape changed nearly every instance- can not was can’t, would not became wouldn’t, etc.
It is a minor thing perhaps, but it does change the flavour of the dialogue slightly. Contractions are a bit less formal and one might expect that a King, or Wizard, or Elf Lord would not use them. It certainly gives the recording a more modern feel.
I believe there is a mixed case use in the films, but I have never watched them with this thought specifically in mind.
|
|
|
I don't mind these kind of changes, as long as they're subtle and witty. For example, when Gandalf says in the EE edition something to the likes of even the Dwarves themselves can't find their secrets once forgotten, Legolas says: "Why doesn't that surprise me?". Quite updated, but I like it, because it still shows an Elf's contempt of the Dwarves. Or Pippin's remark of "Oh, that was close!" when the Hobbits land on a heap in the road, so updated it hurts, but it was also funny and showed Pippin's carefreeness. There's also the "You could have picked a better spot!" Poor Gimli!
Others mentioned it before, the "Looks like meat is back at the menu, boys!" line was out of place. I also didn't like Gimli's line: "We Dwarves are wasted in cross country. We're natural sprinters! Very dangerous at short distances!" The words "cross country" and "sprinters" really made me cringe...
YOU SHALL NOT PASS! 
|
|
|
A hazard of using current language is that what seems current today is likely to seem dated and silly in five, ten, twenty years.
Since the makers of the films hope to make a classic like the Wizard of Oz, they will probably cringe twenty years from now at some of their "modern" moments.
When you watch older films portraying times of legend [think "Camelot" with Richard Harris and Vanessa Redgrave] the modernized stuff is quite cringeworthy, such as Vanessa Redgrave's 60s makeup.
I must admit I enjoyed most of the gags inserted into the film, except for Gimli's cross country comment. It broke the spell for a moment.
"I hope that the forgotten people will not have forgotten how to fight."
|
|
|
This is an interesting thread. I won't argue that some of the dialogue in the films was slightly "un-Tolkien", it was. What I find interesting is Tolkien himself was criticised at one point for being anachronistic himself. Many fantasy readers still consider the weak point of Tolkien his "modern English". Look even at the dress, hobbits wear waistcoats, top hats, and carry handkerchiefs in a "time" that predates the Greeks, Celts, Egyptians, everybody!
In the grand scheme of things, Tolkien had a bit of his hand in the anachronistic pot when he wrote about Middle-Earth, so I don't see anything wrong with PJ taking a few liberties himself.
I also am a steward.
|
|
|
The updates are fine when they are done in moderation. The "nobody tosses a Dwarf" line in FOTR is a good example... because it has come so suddenly and out of the blue during one of the film's most tense sequences. It gives the audience a chance to take a breath and remember that they're not watching the apocalypse, just a rather fantastic film.
The "you could have picked a better spot" bit in TTT was fine, too. But they took it a bit too far after that.
--mentalcritic
"Ash nazg durbatulûk!"
|
|
|
Mostly I wanted to thank you for making an on-topic, interesting post! (I like most of the OT ones, but it's nice to see a mix.)
About the subject, though...Most of the lines that have been mentioned annoyed me not because of the "updates" for today's audiences, but because they were humorous at inappropriate times.
I do think some updates are necessary so that the work is accessible to the modern moviegoer. For instance, in the cast commentary of the EE FOTR DVD, someone says that Aragorn's line "by nightfall these hills will be swarming with orcs" was originally "these hills will be fair teeming with orcs". The original line would have seemed silly to most people in the theatre, which throws off the mood of the film.
In a more practical vein, some old-fashioned speech can be much more difficult to follow when heard than when read. Has anyone else ever had trouble understanding a live Shakespeare production?
Compare: how different are these updates from translating a work like Beowulf from Middle English to modern English?
So although some things don't need to be updated, I think the real problem is making sure updates are appropriate and don't betray anything of the original work.
...and what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?
|
|
|
Thanx! And: you're welcome. I'm glad you like it. (I was wondering about that, actually. How people were liking it...).
Anyway, good point . I can see the necessity in making dialogue accesible. Indeed, the words 'fair teeming' wouldn't resonate a lot with people today, I'm sure... (I didn't catch that line/comment on the commentary, btw. Nice opportunity to pick up the dvd('s) again )
'Shh! Gandalf's thinking.'
|
|
|
Thanks, mellonquendi. I'm glad you agree! 
...and what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?
|
|
|
Anachronisms...going completely off-topic for the movie, but right to the heart of anachronism with relation to Tolkien...
I love when a plan comes together.
I am reading Tom Shippey's JRRTolkien, Author of the Century, or starting to, anyway. In his Foreword, he says,
I consider in particular the literary function of hobbits, and of Bilbo Baggins, their representative. I argue that they are above all anachronisms, creatures of the early modern world of Tolkien's youth drawn, like bilbo, into the far more archaic and heroic world of dwarves and dragons, wargs and were-bears. However, Tolkien, as a philologist, and also as an infantry veteran, was deeply conscious of the strong continuity between that heroic world and the modern one.
(Break for an example, then...)
Yet Graves point is precisely to deny (italics belong to author) any sense of anachronism. In its way-a much more complex and extensive way - The Hobbit carries out the same exercise. it takes its readers, even child readers, into a totally unfamiliar world, but then indicateds to them that it is not totally unfamiliar, that they have a birth-right in it of their own. The book operates frequently through a clash of styles- linguistic, moral, behavioural - but ends by demonstrating unity and udnerstanding on a level deeper than style.
This is partly making the case that symbolic anachronism was a tool used by Tolkien himself in the texts.
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
|
|
|
That's an interesting quote, I must look for that book.
I don't know if I agree about the Hobbits being anachronistic for reason of their more closely resembling the rural English life of Tolkien's youth. I think it may be possible that the good professor introduces his story in a more or less familiar world, and then gradually leads us further and further from our comfort zones. Keep in mind as well that this book was his response to the publisher's requests for more "stories about hobbits" after the success of "The Hobbit". He had already written a book that started in the Shire and had gone on a wild flight of fancy from there and then returned to the familiarity of the Shire again. As different as these books are, they still share this common structure.
George is my hero cos he's so big and strong.
|
|
|
True...however, the quote was referencing the Hobbit...which is a little off topic from the thread, but not tragically so.
The publisher wanted more books about Hobbits, which was why LotR was done, true, however, perhaps LotR involves more Hobbits, and the loss of innocence, if you will, of not only Hobbits, but also the rural British, with whom he grew up.
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
|
|
|
The interesting part of this is that (if I remember right) he talks about Hobbits as being anachronistic by using author references to try to place them in time. He references steam (train) engines, invented in the 1830sish... (again, dates, trying to remember, not about to look it up this late), etc. making Hobbits, through Bilbo, denizens of a modern world. Bilbo, however, is pulled from his comfortable 19th c. existence to a world of trolls, goblins, giant spiders and dragons.
That is how he is anachronistic. He is a "modern" character put in a series of adventures in a world set over 1000 years earlier.
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
|
|
|
A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.
|
|
|
...the angels had guitars even before they had wings...
|
|
|
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
|
|
|
Bump bump bump
  if you hate Tom Hardy
|
|
|
Bumping time
Fernie
|
| |
| | |
company.
Advertise on IMDb.
License our content.
