Petty's Purist LotR Edits [4]

The Shire is a beautiful set, works for me (colour works as well)

{{ Its a beautiful set, its just wrong on almost every point. From the look of the landscape and the colours, to the positioning of places and things, to the Hill not being the only or even biggest Hill there, to the gardens been an overgrown mess.
If you actually compare it to Tolkiens description of the Shire they got far more wrong than they got right.
I liked the Mill, though why they even bothered with it given the role of Sandyman and his father are gone entirely Im not sure.
Bit like how they boasted how they built the Shire set a full year ahead so stuff would grow in and looked lived in, grow in yes, lived in no, if it were lived in by hobbits the grass would be cut, flowers tended to in proper flower beds, hedges cut and trimmed neatly. There should be fields of crops. Tolkien outright tells us the Shire is like that- hell the film does it too saying hobbits like order and good tilled earth- whilst showing us a messy unkempt unordered Shire and no good earth to till.
I dont know anything about the place they filmed other than its normally a farm, but Id guess from looks of it, its a sheep farm not crops.

Its not even like they didnt have visual reference for this, they did, from the author himself.
I mean compare the two- heres Tolkiens Hobbiton, the Hill is clear an dobvious and stand out, dominating the surrounds, note how neat, ordered, tidy everything is, gardens in neat rows full of colour, fields of crops and furloughed fields. Rows of tress, presumably apple or such like in front of Bag End.
Note how big Bag End is, Bagshot Row is at the foot of the Hill almost, everything above that, including the entire field with the Party tree is in Bilbos land. No wonder he needs to hire full time gardeners.



And here is Pjs version.





I dont even feel I have to say much, the diffrences in, well almost everything are obvious. Even the road Gandalf approaches on is going the wrong way! }}
}}

Hm.. The hill in the background in the second film still does have a decidedly cow-trafficked look to it.

I wouldn't complain about the direction of the road, that's just the lay of the land. Not clear how much land they had control of, but they were going for tight shots. The first shot you show has untilled land maybe a mile away, which is asking alot. It could have been filled in with CGI, true enough. But you have the wrong party tree: in neither books or movie was the tree on top of the hill.

{{ Pretty sure that is the party tree as Tolkien drew it,  its on the bottom slope in the last field within the grounds of Bag End. Not on top, almost right outside Bilbos front door- large field single tree in it.


'One morning the hobbits woke to find the large field, south of Bilbos front door..a special entrance was cut into the bank leading to the road...hobbit-families of Bagshot Row, ADJOINING the field, were intensely interested and generally envied....'- FoTR  

Point is its part of the estate of Bag End, not as in the film held in the middle of Hobbiton becuase their Bag End is tiny in comparison to book version. Especially the grounds it sits in. And they could have easily used matte paintings pre cgi for that sort of shot- films been doing that for decades exceptionally well. And they had some of the best Tolkien artists working for them.}}

If it was on top of the hill Tolkien would have mentioned it. You don't normally refer to the direction from a front door unless it's in front of it. But I suppose you weren't referring to the tree on top but rather the one in the field to the right of Bilbo's front door - which is where the film placed the party tree as well (though further down the hill) so I don't really see what you are complaining about.

I always had the impression Bag-end faces East, though Hammond and Scull state in their discussion of this painting that the North Farthing is over the hill, which makes it facing south.

And oh, hey! Where's Bywater Pool in Tolkien's painting? They've got that in the film, though not quite enough of Bywater.

{{ Bywater Pool isnt in Hobbiton! Its in Bywater. Which is a mile away! There shouldnt actually be a pool there at all, thats something else they got wrong, also the Green Dragon isnt in Hobbiton either, its at Bywater too. The inn in Hobbiton is the Ivy Bush, and its not even technically in Hobbiton, its on the road just outside on the way to Bywater. There should just be The Water running through Hobbiton via the Mill on the way to Bywater. }}

Where is that map from?  It shows more detail than most, including the road through hobbiton leading south.

I just realized there's no road between the East Road and Tuckborough.  Strange, that...though I know Merry had to cross fields to get to Tuckborough when you see it on a map it makes no damn sense.  And with my 90 degree rotation of the hill I always thought of Tuckborough of being to the NE of Hobbiton rather than due South.

{{ Its Tolkiens map as published in Lord of the Rings, and in single issues of FotR, in my edition it faces the opening of chapter 1. Dont American editions have the Shire map?
You get to Tuckborough via the road from Stock, and one presumes there is some sort of unmarked road linking it and Tookbank, given they seem to be only a mile or two apart, though it is through hills so depending on the land maybe not. }}

If you have a small paperback version some of the details get lost - like the direction of the road through hobbiton.

{ Or where Bywater is it seems! Actually the oddest thing to me about the Shire is the Three-Farthing Stone, which is fine except the Shire has four farthings, one for each compass point. So why isnt it the Four-Farthings Stone?}}

North farthing doesn't meet the others.  It's between East and West farthing, but further north. Your map shows that!

{{True.

I suppose you weren't referring to the tree on top but rather the one in the field to the right of Bilbo's front door - which is where the film placed the party tree as well (though further down the hill)- Halfy


yeah thats the one, not on top, in Bag Ends grounds. Which it isnt in the film as Bag End has no grounds of note.
In the film the party field is next to the pool on the flat ground below. Its not part of Bag Ends lands or estate at all. (and another small nitpick the tree is wrong too- in the book it fits inside the pavillion set up for the birthday meal, theres no chance that things going inside a pavillion! )



The point is they really underplay Frodo and Bilbo's social status by downgrading Bag End from a hobbit manor house with extensive lands and gadens, to just a slightly fancy hobbit hole. And as we dont see inside any other hobbit holes there is no reaosn for a viewer not to think they arent all like that.
And its important because they also undemrine the Frodo/Sam character development and their releationship by likewise removing their starting positions as employer and employee, as master and servant. They even have Frodo drinking in the pub with him, even though its clearly in the book a working class pub, frequented by folk such as gardeners and mill workers.
Frodo hung out with other posher hobbits, Fatty, Merry, Pippin, all well to do and important families. He didnt hang out with Sam. Sam worked for him.
If you add that to the downgrading of Bag End then you lose for me a lot of the character and nature of the releationships.

I mean if you draw a line round Bag End, it does as Tolkien says take up the entire top of the Hill, its massive, and the grounds, including the entire field holding the party tree is likewise huge.  



Its even possible its a bit bigger than I have indicated, as I'm not sure if Bagshot Row are owned hobbit holes, or if they pay rent to Bilbo and are on his estate (its common in large English manors with lots of grounds for the servants to have cottages on the grounds) and we know that the Gamgees at least who live in Bagshot Row are employees of Bag End. }}

{{Perhaps a better example is to be more contemporary to show why it bugs me. Imagine you are watching a period drama set in England adapted from some novel, the main character is supposed to be very well to do and lives in an english manor house with its own extensive grounds.
Something like this-



But when it turns up in the adaptation they've filmed it here instead-



Yes its still a bit posh, yes its probably an expensive house, but its not a manor is it? And as such it doesnt convey the right meaning or inform the viewer correctly about the sort of folk who would live there and their social status. In the PJ films there is no real reason to assume Frodo and Sam are not same class and of similalr status and wealth, we get two mentions in the entire tirlogy to Sam actually being his gardener (only 1 in theatrical versions) when Sam tells Faramir thats what he is to Frodo, his gardener. But its a bit late in the tale by then to be setting that up and establishing it.}}

I would have put Bag End between your two examples. Bilbo was not a Lord, simply well off.

The film makers discussed deliberately blurring the line between Frodo and Sam as they felt modern viewers around the world wouldn't quite follow the distinctions.

{{ A reason Ive never felt has much reasoning behind it. Class exists everywhere, anywhere you have diffrences in wealth and status, which is everywhere. A Master/servant releationship is one of the oldest and most common there is, its hardly left-field. And it seriously undermines the character develpoment between Frodo and Sam from the very start to remove it. Just another silly mistake they made in adapting that was entirely unnecessary and detracts from the original tale substantially. }}

I think Americans and Canadians and Aussies and New Zealanders are not really comfortable with master/servant relationships. We understand them in the context of older European dress and accents, but not otherwise.

{{ So nowhere in those countries does a rich person higher someone else on lower income to work for them but not hang out together as close friends? Of course they do! Its ludicrous to think otherwise. }}

It's a very small segment of the population that may treat "servants" differently. They may not hang out with them socially, but they won't talk to them very differently. There's definitely a divide between office workers and janitors, but you'll find constant attempts to bridge the gap.

{{ frodo doesnt treat sam in any particualr way really, he is clearly on friendly terms with him and they get on fine, its just they move in different social circles, as youd expect of a weathly landowning manor house living person and their gardener. So Frodo oesnt reealy get to know Sam a sa perosn until after they start travelling together, and Frodo slowly starts to realise he has gretaly underestimated Sam and his qualities.
Youd not expect the guy who comes round to cut your grass to also want to be your best friened and go out with you for drinks would you? No they come round, they do the job, you pay for them, swap some banal nicities and off they go home.
I dont see how thats weird, unusual or difficult to relate to- it happens alll over the world. }}

It's the assumption of a class difference, the way Sam thinks of Frodo as "his master". The social circle differences are there of course, but the British class system is seen as impenetrable in a way it's not in so many other cultures.

{{ But he calls him Mister Frodo in the films, why not just switch Master for Mister and preserve the relationship and its development from the books? Theyve thrown the baby out with the bath water. }}

Mister and Master sounds much the same to me in this case, considering Frodo never calls Sam the same. And I know this might be stretchlng it, but I always liked how Frodo says he’s glad Sam is with him at the end of FotR, while at the end of RotK he is glad to be with Sam. A nice touch, I think, that shows Frodo no longer feels like he stands higher in anyway (that’s how I interpret it). But still, you are absolutely right that the master/servant relationship is almost absent, and I would have liked to see the relationship between them develop more like it did in the books. Would have given those two scenes much more effect as well.

By the way, almost finished my second viewing of your TH edits - quite the marathon in a couple of days I wish the TH edits were publicly available, I really believe thousands would enjoy them and finally have movies to watch (instead of movies to forget asap). I even wish Peter Jackson & Co and the cast could watch it so they would know they didn’t bungle it entirely.