Musings on Tolkien: The Hobbit Movie and How I Would Do It

Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies are excellent, and it seemed like only a matter of time before he directed a movie version of The Hobbit.  However, there are some problems with the source material that make it difficult to just jump right into The Hobbit with the same vim and verve as the Lord of the Rings movies.  For one, the books are very different.  The Hobbit is a children's book; a faerie story with a light-hearted tone, plenty of humor, and songs that help carry the plot.  (You could even argue that The Hobbit is a musical in book form.)  The Lord of the Rings by contrast, is a much more serious and darker book with a more adult audience in mind and is considered the first modern fantasy novel.  By going back and doing The Hobbit second as a prequel, the difference in tone and content between the books causes a serious problem.  If Peter Jackson goes with the epic qualities of his Lord of the Rings movies, it can come across as a betrayal of the source material.  However, if he treats The Hobbit like the children's book it is, he'll end up with a movie that is out of step with the ones he's already made.  And that doesn't even take into account how Tolkien's concept of the One Ring changed: in The Hobbit it's just Bilbo's magic ring while in The Lord of the Rings it's the most powerful instrument of evil in Middle Earth.  These are problems that Peter Jackson is going to have to work out and I'm sure he'll do a fine job.  But this is how I would tackle the problem.

INT. BAG END - NIGHT

Sam Gamgee settles down in his armchair to smoke his evening pipe.  His children crowd around him.

ELANOR: Daddy!  Tell us a story!

SAM: Would you like to hear the story about how Mister Frodo and I journeyed to Mordor to destroy the Ring?

ROSE: You always tell us that one!

GOLDILOCKS: Tell us a different story!

SAM: Well, have I ever told you the story of how Old Mister Bilbo went on an adventure and found the Ring?

HAMFAST: No you haven't.

DAISY: Tell us that one, Daddy!

Sam picks up a large red book and opens it to the first pages.

SAM: (reading) In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit...

FADE TO:

EXT. BAG END - MORNING

Bilbo Baggins sits on the front porch of Bag End, blowing smoke rings.

This opening scene serves multiple purposes.  It ties The Hobbit in with The Lord of the Rings, establishing this as a prequel.  But since it is framed as Sam telling the story to his kids, it allows for The Hobbit to be more of a children's movie.  The book takes a very pro-Bilbo stance, treating the Thorin and Company as a bumbling band of misfits.  If Sam were narrating the movie, it would only make sense for him to build up Bilbo as one of the most famousest of hobbits and the only one with any real amount of common sense.  The narrator of The Hobbit has several good lines and making Sam the narrator would help get those lines into the movie.  And it could also provide a means to address some of the inconsistencies between the books as the children could interrupt Sam's story on several occasions, much like Fred Savage does in The Princess Bride.  Sam could then provide an explanation for the differences, he could essentially say, "Shut up.  I'm telling a story," or he could even say, "That's how Mister Bilbo wrote it and so that's how I'm telling it," which would be a sly way of shoving the blame back on Tolkien.  And I think Tolkien would approve of this approach because he was obsessed with framing narratives.  Of course I would have to restrain myself from inserting a scene right after the "Tra-la-la-lally" song in which one of the kids asks, "Is this a singing book?"

Top 5 First Lines

It's been a while since I've done a top 5 list, so I decided to dust it off and give it another go.  These are my five favorite opening lines from the books and short stories that I've read.  I've probably forgotten something brilliant from Dr. Seuss or another semi-forgotten children's author, but these are the five that came most readily to mind.  In chronological order:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
The Bible

Marley was dead: to begin with.
A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens

In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit.
The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien

There was a boy called Eustace Clarence Scrubb, and he almost deserved it.
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader by C.S. Lewis

William Shakespeare, later known as the Beard of Avon, was born in 1564, on April 21, 22, or 23, and all his life kept people guessing.
Twisted Tales from Shakespeare by Richard Armour

Feel free to psychoanalyze me in the comments section for what my choices say about my deepest fears or other nonsense.

Musings on Tolkien: Mingling

Most of the time in Tolkien's works, the Free Peoples of Middle Earth keep to themselves.  Elves hang out with Elves, Men with Men, and Dwarves ignoring as much of the rest of the world as possible.  But every so often there are instances of different people groups mingling with each other, and this is always a Good Thing.

Gondolin was the greatest of the cities of the Elves.  One of the marks of its greatness was that in was inhabited by both Noldor and Sindar.  And when Hurin and Huor, and later Tuor, came to Gondolin, they were treated as valuable members of the community, even though they were Men.  At the Gates of Moria, Gandalf wistfully recalls a happier time when the Elves of Hollin were in close friendship with the Dwarves of Moria.  At the beginning of the Hobbit it tells of a time when the Dwarves of the Lonely Mountain and the Men of Dale lived in close friendship before Smaug laid waste to the countryside.  And by the end of the book, that friendship has been reformed with the added close allies of the Elves of Mirkwood.

All the great love stories of Middle Earth are romances between the races: Thingol and Melian, Beren and Luthien, Tuor and Idril, Aragorn and Arwen.  And one of the great relationships of The Lord of the Rings is the friendship between Gimli and Legolas.

But the best example of mingling is embodied in the Silmarils.  The Trees of Valinor were among the greatest of the works of the Ainur, and Yavanna's masterpiece.  But they were at their most beautiful when the golden light of Laurelin and the silver light of Telpirion mingled.  Feanor, the greatest craftsman of the Elves, captured the mingled light of the trees in his Silmarils, the greatest work of craftsmanship by the Elves.  After Beren recovers one of the Silmarils and delivers it to Thingol, Thingol takes the Silmaril and has it set inside the Nauglamir, the Necklace of the Dwarves, the greatest work of Dwarven craftsmanship.  So we have the greatest of the works of the Ainur encased in the greatest of the works of the Elves, encased in the greatest of the works of the Dwarves.  And it is possibly even more beautiful when worn by Luthien, the daughter of an Elf and an Ainu, married to a Man.  And when that exact Silmaril is delivered to Valinor which sets off a chain reaction that ends with the final destruction of Morgoth, it is delivered by Earendil, the son of Tuor and Idril, and his wife Elwing, the granddaughter of Beren and Luthien.

Batman Full Circle

Four years ago I promised the world that I would give them my idea for a trilogy of movies to follow up Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins.  I gave synopses for the first two movies but never got around to writing the third one.  With The Dark Knight Rises opening soon, I figured that time was running out for me to finish this.  I have intentionally avoided all news and spoilers about The Dark Knight Rises as much as possible and these ideas are basically the same ones I intended to write but never did way back in the weeks before The Dark Knight came out.

Bruce has no friends.  All his time and energy is consumed with his life as Batman.  An atmosphere of fear covers Gotham.  And there is always more crime to fight.  Like a break-in at Arkham Asylum that releases several prisoners, including the Joker.  While investigating, Batman finds clues that the League of Shadows might have been involved.

Later, Bruce is introduced to a woman named Talia.  He takes a liking to her and they start a relationship.  But unbeknownst to Bruce, Talia has re-formed the League of Shadows and has taken up the title of Ra's al Ghul.  She is the daughter of Liam Neeson's character from Batman Begins, and her mission is to finish the task her father started: the destruction of Gotham.  While her father wanted to use Bruce as the main instrument in Gotham's destruction, Talia has chosen the Joker.  Unfortunately for her, the Joker quickly gets out from under her influence and starts doing his own thing once again.  He starts running amok, distributing his personal brand of mayhem: enough to keep Batman busy and frustrated, but not enough to bring Gotham to its knees.  Meanwhile, Talia's feelings for Bruce are growing.  They were initially feigned in order for her to spy on him and distract Batman, but she is now growing fond of Bruce and starting to question whether her father was really right about him.

Among the victims of the latest Joker attack are a family of acrobats.  Young Dick Grayson is the only member to survive.  He has no other family and is all alone.  Alfred learns of this and invites Grayson to stay at Wayne Manor for a time.  Alfred hopes that Bruce will be able to help Grayson get through the loss of his parents since Bruce also lost his parents.  Alfred also hopes that it will help nudge Bruce into an act of humanity.  But all Grayson cares about is exacting revenge on the Joker.  Bruce sees a lot of his old self in Gryason and realizes that Batman can't offer him any healing, only revenge.

Eventually, Grayson figures out that Bruce is Batman and demands that Bruce let him help take down the Joker.  Bruce relents, mostly because he really needs another person for his take-down plan, but not before exacting a promise from Grayson that they are doing it for justice, not revenge.  Working together they capture the Joker and send him off to Arkham once again.  During the take-down, Grayson gets the perfect chance to kill the Joker but doesn't because of his promise.

Talia realizes that there is enough goodness in Gotham to make it worth saving.  Her relationship with Bruce has blossomed into a full-blown romance.  (Are there wedding bells in their future?)  Bruce begrudgingly lets Grayson stay on as his partner.  Grayson takes the name of Robin.  Batman was supposed to be a symbol of hope to the downtrodden, but instead he became a symbol of fear to everyone.  But just as the first robin of the year is a sign that winter is over and spring has begun, Robin is a symbol of hope and new beginnings.

Batman Begins was in part the story of Bruce and his fathers.  Even though Thomas Wayne was his biological father, Alfred and Ra's al Ghul (and to a lesser extent Falcone and Fox) were all father figures for Bruce.  At the end of this movie, Bruce is now the father figure.  At the beginning of the movie Bruce has no family.  By the end he has a son and a potential wife.  And by the end Bruce has regained himself.  Batman is once again a part of Bruce instead of the other way around.

So there you go.  I hope it was worth the wait.

Musings on Baseball: The Pitcher Win

Many of the serious baseball analysts I read and listen to deride the pitcher win stat, saying that it says very little about how well a pitcher actually pitched, especially since starters rarely pitch more than six innings.  There are so many other people playing the game and so many other variables that go into winning a game that giving one player credit for the win is just ridiculous.  I am in complete agreement with this assessment.  When I hear people on the radio or television saying, "So-and-so is going for his fifth consecutive win," or "Such-and-such is still looking for his first win of the season," I find myself screaming at the voices who can't hear me, "That doesn't mean anything!"  However, I think the pitcher win is here to stay.

Let's look at three statements:
(1)  Pitcher X has a win in 7 of his last 10 outings.
(2)  Pitcher X has a quality start in 7 of his last 10 outings.
(3)  Pitcher X has a Game Score of 70 or higher in 7 of his last 10 outings.

What do these three statements actually tell us about how well Pitcher X actually pitched?

In order to get a win, a pitcher must be the pitcher of record after the fifth inning.  To be the pitcher of record a pitcher must be the pitcher who was pitching when his team gained the lead for good.  So, if a team took the lead in the first inning and never surrendered it, the pitcher who pitched the fifth inning would get the win.  If a team took the lead in the eighth inning and never surrendered it, the pitcher who pitched the eighth inning would get the win.  (It's a little more nuanced and complex than that, but that's the gist of it.)  So for a starter to get a win, he has to pitch at least five innings, have a lineup behind him that scores more runs than his gives up, and have the relievers that come after him not give up the lead.

With so many variables in play, the pitcher win can be a pretty fickle stat.  Sometimes, the pitcher who pitches the worst in a game is the one who gets the win.  This happened on the first day of the season this year.  Justin Verlander pitched eight shutout innings for the Detroit Tigers.  Jose Valverde came in to pitch the ninth inning with a 2-0 lead.  He proceeded to give up two runs in the top of the ninth.  The Tigers scored a run in the bottom of the ninth to win the game, but because Valverde was now the pitcher of record, he was the pitcher awarded with the win.  But who was more deserving of the win, the pitcher who gave up 0 runs in 8 innings or the one who gave up 2 runs in 1 inning?

Also, lack of run support can lead to a pitcher not getting any wins.  In 2007, San Francisco Giants pitcher Matt Cain was one of the best pitchers in the National League.  He was among the league leaders in several pitching stats.  Except wins.  Because of the Giants' anemic bats, Matt Cain got a measly 7 wins in 2007.  In 2008 he was just as good, and even tied for the league lead in games started.  He got a whopping 8 wins.  Meanwhile, in 2007, Jamie Moyer of the Philadelphia Phillies pitched almost exactly the same number of innings as Matt Cain, yet gave up more hits and more runs than Cain while striking out fewer batters.  His win total?  14.

So statement 1 says that Pitcher X pitched at least 5 innings in those 7 games and got good run support.

In order to get a quality start, a pitcher must pitch at least 6 innings and give up fewer than 3 earned runs.  (For those of you not in the know, an earned run is a run that has been determined to be the fault of the pitcher.  Unearned runs are runs that are not the fault of the pitcher, usually scoring as a direct result of an error on the part of one of the fielders.  The idea being that a pitcher should not be penalized for the failures of his defense.)  If a starter pitches a quality start, he puts his team in a good position to win the game.  In April of this month, teams whose pitchers got a quality start had a combined .648 winning percentage.  That comes to 105 wins in a 162 game season.  To put that into perspective, the Philadelphia Phillies last year had the most wins in baseball with 102.

The big advantage of the quality start is that it completely removes run support from the equation.  And it's hard to be dissatisfied with your pitcher's performance if he gets a quality start.  However, the quality start is still imperfect.  It ignores unearned runs.  Also, if a pitcher does the bare minimum requirements for a quality start, his stats end up being pretty pedestrian.  Also, a pitcher who pitches 9 innings but gives up 4 runs does not get credit for a quality start, even though that's an overall better performance than a six inning three run start.

In 2007, Matt Cain had 22 quality starts, tied for sixth in the league.  (Jamie Moyer had 18.)  He had a quality start 69% of the time.  In 2008 he had 21 quality starts.  While they don't tell the whole story, his quality start totals are a much better indicator of his performance than his win totals.

So statement 2 says that Pitcher X pitched at least 6 innings in those 7 games and gave up no more than 3 earned runs in each one.  (Or, pitched like Matt Cain in 2007.)

Game Score is a statistic that was developed by baseball statistician Bill James.  It awards points for innings pitched and strikeouts, and subtracts points for walks, hits, and runs allowed.  Most quality starts get game scores in the upper 50s and 60s, with an average around 64.  A game in which a pitcher pitched 7 innings with 1 run, 4 hits, 1 walk, and 6 strikeouts would get a Game Score of 70.  That is a really nice outing, one that fantasy baseball players covet.  Roughly one quarter of all quality starts have a score of 70 or better.

Last year, Justin Verlander led the majors with a 65.9 average Game Score.  The first game of the season where he was brilliant but did not get the win, he scored an 84.  In 2007, Matt Cain had an average Game Score of 54.7, good for ninth in the league.  This year to date, Cliff Lee is the highest ranked pitcher in average Game Score with exactly 10 starts.  In those 10 starts he has 0 wins, 7 quality starts, and 3 games in which he got a Game Score of 70 or better.

So statement 3 says that Pitcher X pitched like an ace 7 out of the last 10 games.  And unless the other 3 games were really ugly, over his last 10 games, Pitcher X has been one of the best pitchers in baseball.

If I was to rank the three statements as to how much they actually tell us about Pitcher X's performance over his last 10 starts, I would rank them 3, 2, 1.  But if I was to rank them how they sound to a casual fan, the rankings would reverse.  Because I am guessing that only the hardcore stat-heads are even aware of or interested in Game Score and a score of 70 doesn't mean much without any context.  Quality start sounds better but unspectacular.

But when I say that Pitcher X won 7 of his last 10 starts, it sounds amazing.  It says that Pitcher X is a dominating force.  It says that when Pitcher X starts, his team has at worst a .700 winning percentage.  It says Pitcher X will carry his team to victory because Pitcher X is a Winner!  And after all, isn't it all about winning?

Which is why the pitcher win is here to stay.  No amount of number crunching will ever sound better than, "Pitcher X got a win!"

Musings on Tolkien: The Golden Child and the Silver Child

After listening to hours and hours of lectures by the Tolkien Professor, reading plenty of Tolkien, and even auditing a couple classes on Tolkien, I have had Tolkien on the brain for over a year now. One result of that is that I have come to several observations concerning themes in his work that I have not seen discussed anywhere else. And now I get to foist them on you, my critical readers. This is the first in what will hopefully be a series (I make no promises as to how long or short the series will be) looking at the things I've been thinking about on Tolkien and his works. A couple procedural notes: I will be writing these assuming my readers have read or are at least familiar with The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion. Therefore I won't explain who anyone is, nor will I post spoiler alerts. If you're looking for a bit of a refresher on anything I'm talking about, the Encyclopedia of Arda is a great resource.

The whole idea for the golden child and the silver child got its start several years ago when I was looking at this painting with the Platypus. The title of the painting is "Faramir at Osgiliath," and it was immediately clear to us that Faramir was the guy at the right of the painting decked out in silver. But my eye was also drawn to the guy in the center of the painting who is wearing a golden helmet and brandishing a spear. He is given a place of prominence in the picture. Could that be Boromir?* As I discussed this with the Platypus, he thought it was an interesting idea because Boromir was the golden child and Faramir was the silver child.

*The more I look at the picture, the more I'm convinced that he is not Boromir. For one, if it was Boromir, the painting would be titled "Boromir and Faramir at Osgiliath." For another, the more I look, the less prominent his position in the painting becomes.

One of the themes that the Tolkien Professor likes to talk about is that those who are the greatest almost always fall. Melkor was the greatest of the Ainur, but he turned to evil. Feanor was the greatest of the Elves, yet he fell too. But in all these cases I noticed that there was always a younger brother who was nearly as great who took the place of the golden child who fell and became great in his own right. This silver child did the things that the golden child should have done and earned the love of the people they commanded (and the reader as well). There were three examples of this that immediately came to mind plus two more that followed not far behind.

The first example, the one that pretty much provides the archetype for the golden child and the silver child, is Melkor and Manwe. Melkor is the greatest of the Ainur, yet he deems his will more highly than Iluvatar's and wishes to dominate the wills of others. Manwe is the second-greatest of the Ainur and is described as "the brother of Melkor in the mind of Iluvatar." But instead of pursuing his own agenda, Manwe chose to do Iluvatar's will, doing his part in creating a world that is good to live in. As the ruling Ainu, Manwe ends up the king of the world while Melkor is chained and thrown into the Void.

Next we get Feanor and Fingolfin. Feanor is the greatest of all the Elves. His work as a craftsman could not be rivaled. His crowning achievement is the creation of the silmarils, three gems that are the most beautiful things any Elf has made before or since. But he became too proud; too full of himself. As a result it was Feanor who instigated the first killing of Elf by Elf, and who swore (and made his sons swear as well) the Oath of Feanor, which caused all kinds of strife among the Elves, even long after his death. And when he died, Tolkien says, "Thus ended the mightiest of the Noldor, of whose deeds came both their greatest renown and their most grievous woe." On the other hand, Fingolfin, the younger half-brother of Feanor, was beloved by his people. When strife broke out between Feanor and Fingolfin, it was Fingolfin who was the better man and did what he could to make peace (even though Feanor was the instigator). It was Fingolfin who led his people across the Helcaraxe after Feanor had abandoned them. And when Fingolfin dies in single combat with Morgoth (a fight he might have been able to actually win had Morgoth not been ten times as large as Fingolfin) the Elves cannot even sing songs about it because their sorrow is too great. And the love of Fingolfin extends to the readers. There are debates as to who is the most awesomest of the Elves: Fingolfin or Finrod. No one even bothers mentioning Feanor in these debates.

Then there is the pair of Boromir and Faramir. Boromir is a mighty warrior. As the oldest son of the Steward of Gondor, Boromir is next in line to be the leader of the most powerful nation of Men in Middle Earth (provided the Heir of Isildur doesn't bother showing up). In fact it's not entirely inconceivable that Boromir would have himself crowned King of Gondor at his father's death. And then Boromir falls under the prey of the One Ring and tries to take it from Bilbo. Faramir, on the other hand, welcomes the Return of the King. He is a valiant warrior in his own right, but would much rather live in peace. And he says of the Ring, "Not if I found it on the highway would I take it." Boromir is able to find redemption by defending Merry and Pippin, but it is Faramir who gets to marry the princess and live happily ever after. And readers adore Faramir. If I did a poll of favorite characters from The Lord of the Rings, Faramir would come in no lower than second on the list. In fact, the biggest criticism I hear about Peter Jackson's version of The Two Towers is, "They ruined Faramir!"

After these first three pairings immediately jumped out at me, I went in search of other examples. The next one I found was Saruman and Gandalf. Saruman is the head of the White Council and the most learned of the wizards. But he desired too much power and set himself up as a second dark lord in a tower. Meanwhile, Gandalf spends his time travelling all over Middle Earth, doing what he can to empower people to fight the Enemy. And when Gandalf dies, he is sent back as Gandalf the White, taking on the mantle that Saruman rejected.

Then I started looking at Turin. He bears all the marks of a golden child gone sour. He is the most beautiful of all the Men, very charismatic, and a powerful warrior. But everything he does goes horribly wrong. Maybe it's because he's been cursed by Morgoth, or maybe it's due to his own pig-headedness and impulsive nature. But he accidentally kills Saeros and Beleg, unwittingly marries his sister, is directly responsible for the downfall of Nargothrond, and generally leaves chaos and destruction in his wake. But if Turin is the golden child, who is the silver child? Turin had no brothers and his sisters don't fit the bill of a silver child. But he did have a cousin: Tuor. Tuor does many of the things that Turin was supposed to do. While Turin was directly responsible for the destruction of Nargothrond, Tuor is instrumental in saving a remnant of people from the fall of Gondolin. While Turin failed to marry Finduilas, the daughter of the Elven king (and the text implies that things would have been better for all involved if he had), Tuor marries Idril, the daughter of a different Elven king. And through this union Earendil is born who is vitally instrumental in the final defeat of Morgoth.

So here are my five examples of the golden child and the silver child. Does anyone have any other examples?

Top and Bottom of 2011 - #1

Best

The Big Heat (1953)

This is one of the first “obsessed cop does whatever it takes to bring down the bad guys” films and also one of the best. Glenn Ford stars as Dave Bannion, a cop on a mission to take down a local drug lord. Along the way he encounters damaged dames, truly evil thugs (especially the one played by Lee Marvin) and corruption that goes all the way up to the police commissioner. I especially liked the scenes of Bannion interacting with his wife; they are so warm and amusing they paint a wonderful portrait of marital bliss in the midst of an otherwise very dark movie.

Worst

Troll 2 (1990)

Every once in a while a movie comes along that is famous for being so bad. This movie is so inept that someone made a whole documentary about how bad it is. First of all, there is not a single troll to be seen in this movie. Instead we get a town full of goblins. The goblins look like cheap Halloween costumes and apparently their favorite food is half human half plant. The acting is bad across the board, especially Deborah Reed as the goblin queen, who chews so much scenery that it’s a wonder there were any sets left by the end of the movie. All the characters are idiots, none of them even approaching likability. And then there is the script, full of clunky dialog and loads of “as you know, Bob” exposition. But the absolute best part of the movie comes during a car trip. Mom tries to cheer up her son by getting him to sing. “Sing that song I like so much.” Taking a page from Manos: The Hands of Fate, I mockingly started singing “Row, row, row your boat.” And then the kid started singing. “Row, row, row your boat...”

Coming up next: I'm not sure. I've been mulling over some posts about themes in Tolkien's writing, so those might be next. I've also got a couple long-abandoned projects that I could dust off and finish. And of course there's the 25+ movies I've already watched this year (that I still haven't written blurbs for). So there's bound to be more stuff coming down the pipeline, though I'm not going to commit to anything specific just yet.