It is mentioned several times, especially around the hobbits, about them buying and sellling things, and trading is mentioned in LOTR as well. Even in the Prancing Pony, drinks had to be bought with something.

Bilbo became rich with treasures from the cavetroll's hord, which consisted of gold and other precious items. As it is today, gold had value. The dwarves valued mithril.

I can't remember anything specific, but guessing from Tolkien, the monetary system would be based (if not used by) gold, silver, and other precious stones. I could see someone buying a drink for a copper.

There's a large Tolkien forum at The One Ring.net. I put in two different links because TOR is upgrading its software at the moment and you might hit a Redirect until they finish. They're the authors of the Ringers: Lord of the Fans documentary.

As to money, it appears Middle-Earth operated on a cash-only basis.

OK, I have a question. Does anyone know if there is a forum like this one for the Lord of the Rings?

If you're into role-playing, you might want to check out this site: http://www.lotrplaza.com

You'll have to excuse the crazy icons, since we're in the middle of our Halloween celebration where the entire plaza dons costumes for about a month. Mordor's (my kingdom) theme is some fantasy series I've never heard of (we were the Discworld series last year by Terry Pratchett which I thought was pretty neat). This celebration gives you a chance to role-play as one of the theme's characters instead of your own, but since I'm not that familiar with the themes we've used since I've been a member (which is about three years, come this New Year's Eve), I simply role-play as my own. If you're curious about my character, you can check out my Squidoo page: http://www.squidoo.com/Naelia

There's also a section where you can talk about the books and movies, but it's mostly role-play.

I'm not sure if this has been posted before, but I just read an interview with Guillermo del Toro on making The Hobbit, and though there's a bit too much emphasis on the monsters for my taste, I'm pleased that he seems to get the idea that it's a children's story. All in all, it bodes well, I think.

It's been awhile, but I've faithfully kept up with the posts here, even though I haven't had a chance to respond until now. Hi all!

Quite from Aragorn: "The same blood flows in my veins. The same weakness." My opinion is that it's more noble of Aragorn to NOT want the power.

My answer to this would be everything ww said here ... and in a much articulate way than I could.

T.O.M, I so appreciated your review and the interesting info you took time to post. Thanks! (Let's do it again when (hopefully) TTT concert and film come to Grand Rapids. )

Don't they eventually raise up over those weaknesses in the movie too?

I meant to expand on my previous answer. By the end of the movies, they do come to pretty much the same point where Tolkien intended, except for Aragorn, who PJ presented as a slightly wimpy Kingly figure, imho. But the journey on which many of the key characters go to get to the same place as their book characters degrades them, sadly (Faramir: "the Ring will go to Gondor"; Gandalf: cowering before the Witch King, for examples). And the scene where Sauron 'wins' the palantir contest just makes me weep. It's the opposite of what occurs in the book! I always have to fast forward the latter part of that section.

There are portions of the book where Aragorn acts very conflicted and uncertain, but the uncertainty is NEVER about his duty or destiny.

To risk an "I agree" comment ... Precisely!

I'm working on trying to understand why the changes were made, but it almost seems to be like I'm selling out on my views if I understand why changes are made. Really though, I'm a lot better than I was in the past. I need to work on convincing myself that I can understand why they changed things without agreeing with the changes.

I know what you mean. Some of the changes I can truly understand, but the ones I'm okay with having have little to do with the characters, themselves. It's those differences I can't abide, despite the argument that a movie is a different medium and therefore there have to be larger, longer, and more dramatic character arcs to accommodate the viewing audience.

I must be too touchy; I'll try to loosen up because it is so easy for me to read into other people's writing

No, it isn't just you. I think because it's such a beloved story we're all a bit emotionally attached to our viewpoints. Like others have said, I, too, don't mean to direct my frustration at other members here, even though we may have differing viewpoints, but rather any is across the miles to PJ in NZ. I hasten to add, though, that a lot of is also aimed at PJ.

Although the character changes can be seen as showing internal conflict and making the characters more human, it could also be seen as people trying to get out of their responsibilities and commitments.

Excellent way of putting it, PP! And good, solid fleshing out of your thoughts here. Your Scale is basically identical to mine.

By the way, I read the part where Strider becomes Aragorn for a minute, and I think it could have worked on film – at least for me. The main change seemed to be in posture and voice. I think if he squared his shoulders and used a very powerful voice the effect would be the same. Some change in music wouldn’t hurt or maybe suddenly no music.

Yep! It wouldn't have to come across overly dramatic because that would be cheesy, but something alone the lines of your idea, PP, yes. I do wish PJ had asked our opinion before making these films.

As for my favourite Tolkien book, oh my, that's a hard 'un. It would be a toss-up between The Silmarillion, The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, Unfinished Tales,, but I like his lesser-known writing as well, The Smith of Wooten Major, Roverandom, Farmer Giles of Ham, Leaf by Niggle and I dearly love his essay "On Fairy-Stories" and Letters. So yeah, I am at a loss to choose a favourite.

Booky, there have already been some valid posts about a Middle-earth monetary system, and the part I recall that refers to this directly is in Bree at the Prancing Pony when the hobbits' ponies are stolen and Butterbur offers to purchase Ferny's sickly pony at the price of twelve silver pennies, and then kindly gave Merry another 18 pence as "a compensation for the lost animals".

Interesting interview with Del Toro, lys! Oh man, who is going to play Bilbo?! *champs at the bit to know*

I know I have yet to post about favourite movie parts: I haven't forgotten. I will say, though, that, to me, the score doubly brought Middle-earth alive for me. I feel, and this is probably my umpteenth time saying this, that Howard Shore captured even more of the essence of Middle-earth than did PJ. And that's saying a lot. Well, between the glorious music and the magnificent New Zealand scenery.

I haven't proof-read this, but just need to click on "Submit" ... now!

EDIT. I just have to add this:

I rant and rant over Prince Caspian, which underwent a complete restructuring.

Don't get me started on the PC movie. (And I'm not referring to the wonderful BBC version.)

By the end of the movies, they do come to pretty much the same point where Tolkien intended, except for Aragorn, who PJ presented as a slightly wimpy Kingly figure, imho.

I think I can see that. I don't really understand the filmmakers' reasons on changing things such as Gandalf cowering before the Witchking. I've never read anything on it. It wasn't like an added element, like Aragorn not wanting the kingship, to make it more interesting, if you get my drift. When I think of Aragorn in the movie though, I don't usually think of him as weaker, I guess, because I think of the parts such as when he shouts "Let the Lord of the Black Land come forth!" at the Black Gate, and when he is leading everyone into battle at the Black Gate right afterwards, etc. In fact, I know this will probably make you angry (understandably) but there was supposed to be a fight at the Black Gate between Aragorn and Sauron. In the clips I saw of that, Aragorn didn't shrink back, begging "No no please don't make me!!!" but walks forward with determination.
I can see your view on it, he just seems quite heroic in the movie too.

But the journey on which many of the key characters go to get to the same place as their book characters degrades them, sadly (Faramir: "the Ring will go to Gondor"; Gandalf: cowering before the Witch King, for examples).

I did explain why the filmmakers did that regarding Boromir's brother; they were making Faramir into more of an obstacle for Frodo and Sam so that Helms Deep could be the climax of TTT. And I'm sure more thought had to go into it than that. Surely movie people don't just say "Hey! Let's just make it different for no reason!" If I heard they did, my goodness...
Still, I can see how it degrades. I guess little changes build upon little changes which make into bigger changes....

By the way, I read the part where Strider becomes Aragorn for a minute, and I think it could have worked on film – at least for me. The main change seemed to be in posture and voice. I think if he squared his shoulders and used a very powerful voice the effect would be the same. Some change in music wouldn’t hurt or maybe suddenly no music.

Yep! It wouldn't have to come across overly dramatic because that would be cheesy, but something alone the lines of your idea, PP, yes. I do wish PJ had asked our opinion before making these films.

Oh, yes, as I said before I can see that happening. It'd just look weird though on film for Frodo to turn around and "wow, what happened to Aragorn? He turned into this shining white figure and speaks with thunder! How does he do that?" No mockery here or anything.

Don't get me started on the PC movie. (And I'm not referring to the wonderful BBC version.)

Don't worry, I've got no plans too at least not on this thread

In fact, I know this will probably make you angry (understandably) but there was supposed to be a fight at the Black Gate between Aragorn and Sauron.

Yes, they changed it to a digitally created troll -- and took the troll away from book-Pippin the Troll-Slayer. Who, unlike Aragorn, killed the troll with one sword-blow in just the right place.

It was said that they changed the scene from Sauron to troll because "it was just too far from Tolkien's vision" or some such. So I'm not sure if they changed it for the coolness factor or if they changed it because Tolkien had said that Sauron couldn't take physical form without the Ring.

I know this will probably make you angry (understandably) but there was supposed to be a fight at the Black Gate between Aragorn and Sauron. In the clips I saw of that, Aragorn didn't shrink back, begging "No no please don't make me!!!" but walks forward with determination.
I can see your view on it, he just seems quite heroic in the movie too.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying movie-Aragorn didn't have any heroic-type moments in the films, for he did: for example, his speech at the Black Gate quite moves me, as do other scenes when he shows his strong, solid, leader-side. (And yes, I was very relieved when they filmmakers did not include the fight between Sauron and Aragorn.)

I did explain why the filmmakers did that regarding Boromir's brother; they were making Faramir into more of an obstacle for Frodo and Sam so that Helms Deep could be the climax of TTT. And I'm sure more thought had to go into it than that. Surely movie people don't just say "Hey! Let's just make it different for no reason!" If I heard they did, my goodness...

Definitely. One of the many things I admire PJ and his crew for is that they did put a lot of careful thought into each aspect of the films; it's just that I don't always agree with the end result of those thoughts. These movies are truly a phenomenal accomplishment! I often wonder what Tolkien would have thought ...

I'm working on trying to understand why the changes were made, but it almost seems to be like I'm selling out on my views if I understand why changes are made. Really though, I'm a lot better than I was in the past. I need to work on convincing myself that I can understand why they changed things without agreeing with the changes.

I know what you mean. Some of the changes I can truly understand, but the ones I'm okay with having little to do with the characters, themselves. It's those differences I can't abide, despite the argument that a movie is a different medium and therefore there have to be larger, longer, and more dramatic character arcs to accommodate the viewing audience.

I thought I'd mention a little more here. Don't sell out your views! It's good to be faithful to the source material. I really am myself, I just usually attempt to give the filmmakers "an amount" of a creative license. But what would it be like if everyone said "Who cares about Tolkien's writing? Redo it this way or this way!" But changes to characters are the hardest to accept, especially when they seem much more noble in the book. As I said before (I say that a lot don't I? ) I really don't have any intention of starting a discussion on 'Prince Caspian' on this thread, and I shall attempt to not start anything big but I had a really hard time with the changes in Peter's personality. (This just seems to be a really fitting comparison that I can't resist!) It may have been more 'realistic,' (and I can certainly see that) which was the filmmakers' intentions, but I think it really made Peter more immature to start a street fight, be 'enemies' with Caspian, etc....even if it was 'touching' (as I refer to Aragorn in ROTK) in the end when he gives Caspian his sword, and so on. That seems to be about the way you all feel about Aragorn, isn't it? Even if the character turns out more heroic in the movie, and having grown over the course of time, they're still a shadow of the character in the book.

(I guess this wasn't just "mentioning a little more." )

Although the character changes can be seen as showing internal conflict and making the characters more human, it could also be seen as people trying to get out of their responsibilities and commitments.

Excellent way of putting it, PP! And good, solid fleshing out of your thoughts here. Your Scale is basically identical to mine.

Yeah, that really is a good way of putting it. *nodding agreeably*

One of the many things I admire PJ and his crew for is that they did put a lot of careful thought into each aspect of the films; it's just that I don't always agree with the end result of those thoughts. These movies are truly a phenomenal accomplishment! I often wonder what Tolkien would have thought ...

Me too, me too! And I absolutely LOVE the movies.

Edit: Sorry for being so repetitive. I just keep saying the same things in different ways!

I thought I'd drop in here because I just finished the Two Towers section of the book, and I'm pretty much bursting with thoughts and enthusiasm.

Ugh! I'm annoyed all over again with what they did to Faramir in the movie. In the book, he's one of the most honorable characters around, exceedingly wise and just in his judgments. He even says that he would not take the Ring if he saw it lying by the wayside! And in the movie he just seems like a younger, less macho and more doubting version of Boromir. On the contrary! There is even the slight suggestion made in the book that if Faramir had been sent to the council in Rivendell instead of Boromir, all might have turned out differently—that while Boromir was braver and doughtier and stronger of frame, Faramir was better in counsel and in dealing with the hearts of men. It reminds me a little of how Peter and Edmund are described at the end of LWW, actually, although obviously Peter is not portrayed in such a negative light: the older brother as strong warrior, the younger as wise counselor. Faramir's quote about loving the sword and the arrow for what they defend rather than for themselves also reminded me of a bit near the ending of Gail Carson Levine's The Two Princesses of Bamarre, where Addie says that the difference between she and her sister Meryl is that she loves war only for the peace that comes afterward, whereas Meryl loves the adventure of it. I wonder if that was true of Boromir as well?

wisewoman wrote a review of The Two Towers on LibraryThing that made some interesting comparisons between Sam and Gollum of all people, and I found them to be very insightful and helpful as I re-read these last two chapters. Notice even that Sam has "stinker-and-slinker-esque" dual monologue in the ultimate chapter. Really interesting stuff.

Juicy rumor!!!!

This is a news item I'd love to proclaim with all-out certainty, but my tried and trusted source(s) aren't sure if this is a total lock, or whether it's just someone they're seriously interested in. Either way, producers of THE HOBBIT have begun looking at casting for the dwarves (dwarfs?), and one name has emerged as a major contender: Brian Cox. He's a brilliant choice for the role: physically, he fits with the depiction of the the race in LOTR (well, Gimli), and he's a born Scotsman. Also, he could yell at Galadriel for adding narration. So there you go. If this comes to fruition, you heard it here first!

Source (as always AICN has lots of bad language, click at your own risk)

I would be absolutely positively beyond thrilled if this came true and Brian Cox was cast as Thorin Oakenshield. I can't really see him as any of the other dwarves except MAYBE Balin.

This name's been tossed before in various online conversations. I agree; he would make a brilliant Thorin.

I don't know about anybody else but I absolutely love the part Faramir has to play in the LOTR movies. His character was expanded upon and enhanced. I almost like the added part of Faramir almost taking the ring completely to his father, then suddenly realizing his error. I really like how they make him to be more noble than his brother who is made to appear rash and to quick to anger except on some occasions like the passage of Karathras and the mines of Moria. I never really liked Borimier in the books and I'm glad they included his abrupt risk taking personality in the movies.

I don't know about anybody else but I absolutely love the part Faramir has to play in the LOTR movies. His character was expanded upon and enhanced.

*and a hushed silence fell over the room*

Well, I've been too busy defending Jackson's artistic decisions at the Hobbit forum lately to spend a lot of time rehashing those debates here . Suffice it to say, though I wouldn't necessarily use the term "enhanced", I think Jackson's version of Faramir maintains the essential Noble characteristics of Tolkien's original character while giving him more of a dramatic arc struggling against the Ring.

It was necessary in the film to establish the greater strength of Purpose and Character of Aragorn and Frodo. Even Gandalf and Galadriel openly confessed their temptation, both in the book and the films, so it wouldn't have made as much sense to the films' general audience (non-book readers) for Faramir to have been as invulnerable to the Ring as he might have appeared in the books. So you're not alone :)Narnia.

I know a lot of Tolkien fans think Jackson should have just presented the characters exactly as they appear in Tolkien's book, but a director is like any artist. Their job is not to just mimic the original, but give us their own take on it while preserving the key elements (I guess some of us just differ on whether or not those "key elements" truly are preserved ).

GB