h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

when I'm gone for a few days.
No-one comments on your review.
Not that I'm going to watch this film either.
But I'll make a few comments on Aragog/Shelob.
Shelob is better (take that as meaning nastier and scarier and generally ickier) but who is Hagrid to compare to Morgoth/Sauron (can't remember off the top of my head which it was).

Par for the course, I'm afraid! Which would be worse, I wonder - no-one reading it, or no-one caring enough to comment?

I'm not sure it was either Sauron or Morgoth. I'd have to check my Bestiary of Middle Earth but I recall Shelob was greatest and most horrid of the children of Ungoliant... or words to that effect in the Prof's deathless prose.

Oh, yeah, one of those.
I still haven't finished the Silmarillion, because i won't let myself cheat.
But there were nasty spiders in Mirkwood too (any plans to do the Hobbit to go with the other films?)

Must read Silmarillion again one of these days.

I believe the Mirkwood spiders were supposed to be lesser descendants of Ungoliant.

Given the industrial grosses racked up by LOTR, the moneymen will be eyeing The Hobbit avariciously... but it's whether the Tolkien estate will play ball (they're notoriously proprietorial about the family business). Ian McKellen has pretty much ruled out playing Gandalf again, and Ian Holm's knocking on a bit to be playing the younger Bilbo...

Bilbo was like 50 at the time. Which is probably equivalent to about 35-40 for us. So maybe it would be hard.

Speaking of oldness, it'll be weird to see Anthony Hopkins doing a younger Hannibal Lecter (Red Dragon), and apparently it's all going to be done through acting, not with makeup.

Yeah, and I'm the new home ec. teacher at Hogwart.

I'm not too impressed with this blatant cash-in on the Lecter (or Lecktor as it was the first time round) name. I thought Brian Cox was fantastic as Hannibal the Cannibal in Manhunter, and a remake is not required. In fact - heresy alert - I preferred him to Hopkins, who I always think is a bit camp and OTT.

Spent this afternoon listening to three hours of the BBC LOTR with Ian Holm playing Frodo. Really rather fine...

When was it Lektor?
Haven't actually seen Manhunter, but the book has surprisingly little of him in it.
What do you think about Julianne Moore vs Jodie Foster?


So Ian Holm is definitely a Hobbit then? No other options available?

I believe the director of Manhunter changed it to Lecktor to give the name a 'harsher' aspect, whatever that means. To be true, Brian Cox isn't in the film very much but he makes a big impression.

As far as the Foster/Moore thing goes... I'm ashamed to say I've never seen either film all the way through. Hmm. But I prefer Julianne Moore as an actress, she's in my current favourite recent film for one thing...

The story about Ian Holm goes like this: when making LOTR as a movie was first discussed, the writing team (PJ, his wife, I think there was someone else involved too) looked around to see how other people had attempted it. And they got hold of the BBC version on tape and were so impressed by it it was a virtual certainty Ian Holm would get a part in the movie somewhere. (And apparently certain non-literary cast members listened to the tapes as they couldn't be bothered to read the book.)

*begins to growl*
Who didn't read it?
Do they really think they are allowed to do that?

Actually, maybe Hugo Weaving didn't read it, they just said 'you think you're better than everyone else and you don't really like Men' and he said 'ok, I've done that before' and got on with it.

I hear Sean Bean just stuck it on his walkman while being driven to and from the set.

John Rhys Davies said the book was terrible and sent him to sleep in the last interview I read with him. He said the film was much better.

I wonder if they made all the extras read it too? At what point were the actors excused library time? Hmm.

How about anyone who had to speak had to know what they were talking about.

The film was more, erm "accessible", but mostly because the 'concerning hobbits' bit and in fact most of the first book (of 6) took 30 minutes.

Oooh, it was a bit more than that. Closer to an hour, at least... (Pedant's head-bang in the offing here!)

But they did get to Rivendell exceedingly quickly.
In fact it took almost 17 years less than in the book.
That's rather fast, wouldn't you say?

Okay. So they appeared to dispense with the 17 year gap between Bilbo's party and the Black Riders leaving for the Shire, but the journey to Rivendell still took a while (understandably shorter due to mushroom farming treatises and acid-casualty gnomes being excised from the text).

They did almost quote a chapter title (shortcut to mushrooms), and I can't really complain about Bombadill being gone (what use was he anyway?).
I have to defend the film, because I liked it. So I have to pretend that it didn't deviate too much in the important places.

Just because you like something and want to defend it doesn't mean you have to pretend it's perfect. (And I say that as a Doctor Who fan, so I know what I'm talking about.)

Funny how Bombadil is always the first thing to get edited out. Nobody likes him but Tolkien, it seems...

Not saying it's perfect, but that most of the changes made you can understand why.

I do like Bombadill, but he's not exactly necessary, the story doesn't suffer too much if he's gone (also what on earth is he?)

I made roughly the same point in my review of the movie. As far as what Bombadil is... I don't know, somebody probably knows.

(brief visit to bookcase)

My copy of Characters From Tolkien says Bombadil was foremost of the lesser Maiar, associated with the natural world. Well, that's that cleared up, then...

What denotes lesser Maiar? Why are they lesser?
I want that book. Even better than little index in back of Silmarillion, which I have been looking at non-stop.
I want everything, actually, but I think I'd just end up dipping in and out, looking up stuff about wizards and heirs to thrones and skipping 'the battle of...' bits.

the battle of bits in the Silmarillion aren't as good as the other "story" bits - I love Tuor and Gondolin, and Turin Turambar especially.

The only change in the film that narked me though was Arwen at the ford - I can see why I did it, but speaking as a female, I really don't want the female roles built up. I adored Glorfindel in the book, and I can't bear Liv Tyler - so bring back the elf-lord please!
I'd also be inclined not to agree with PJ's interpretation of Aragorn as unwilling to take on the kingship - but that doesn't actually bother me when I watch it.