Welcome Guest 

Register

<< First2324252627Last >>
Author Topic:
asea_aranion
Council Member
Posts: 533
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 23, 2011 08:30
That's just a key distinguishing feature of a race, and I don't feel like I'm looking at Middle-earth characters when looking at PJ's version of Dwarves. I seriously hope he reconsiders yet.

As I previously stated, it seems difficult now to turn back, especially after two or three months of filming. What I AM expecting though is that the other Dwarves (i.e. Dain, the army during the War of the Dwarves and Orcs, and those at the Bo5A are pure Tolkien Dwarves ... let's hope!

Unfortunately, I agree with Ilandir - with the amount of filming that has already been done, I don't expect to see any massive changes in the appearance of the dwarves. I think we can reasonably hope for a few nods back to canon - appropriately colored hoods and cloaks making an appearance in some scenes, a moment of Thorin fingering his gold chain (as he tends to do), etc - but I don't expect Bombur to mysteriously grow a beard instead of what appear to be rather insane muttonchops. Haha.

HOWEVER... I was thinking... and I have a theory about why the decision may have been made to make many of these dwarves look so... NOT dwarf-y.

(This is a long explanation, but I'll get to my point, I promise)

Bifur, Bofur, and Bombur are descended from the dwarves of Khazad-Dum. The colony at Khazad-Dum fell when the dwarves scattered at the reawakening of the Balrog around 1980 TA - that's almost a thousand years before the quest for the Lonely Mountain.

Thorin, Fili, and Kili are descended from the dwarves of the Lonely Mountain. Dori, Nori, and Ori are kinsmen of Thorin. Oin and Gloin had accompanied Thrain and Thorin in their wandering, and eventually settled in the Blue Mountains where they established a small colony.

Balin and Dwalin participated in an earlier attempt to reclaim the Lonely Mountain with Thorin's father Thrain, but Thrain was captured and taken to Dol Guldur.

The greatest argument against the current appearance of the dwarves are that they just look like this rag-tag group of slightly stocky guys who could have come from anywhere or be any number of races. But when we actually think about it... MAYBE this isn't such an unforgivable sin. Because in a way, they are.

Think about it - the dwarves that we're looking at are, in many ways, a group of displaced refugees. They've been kicked out of the Lonely Mountain and Khazad-Dum, and they're living out of a small colony in the Blue Mountains that isn't particularly affluent or grand in any way. They mine iron and they get by, and as Thorin explains, they're not poor by any means, but they're certainly a shadow of their former wealth and power and strength.

Maybe what PJ is trying to emphasize here is the fact that the dwarves we're following have been exiled from their lands, and are on a mission to reclaim their homeland. Maybe he's trying to give them more of a refugee feel, giving a more desperate feel to their plight. And maybe, upon reaching the Lonely Mountain, they'll take on a slightly more traditional feel. (Though I will say, with the exception of Bombur, I really don't have much issue with their clothing... it's more the beards, hairstyles, and hats that made me go "Huh?")

That being said, I still don't believe that, even under those circumstances, the pride of a long, full beard would be lost. In fact, I think that in such a period of exile, they would cling even more to such a prominent symbol of their culture.
~nólemë~
Fan Creations Admin & Creations Forum Moderator
Posts: 10427
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 23, 2011 08:44
That being said, I still don't believe that, even under those circumstances, the pride of a long, full beard would be lost.


Precisely. A dwarf may be subjected to many mishaps and prevail, but the fact that a Tolkienian Dwarf would rather die than suffer the shame of having his long beard shaved, rather speaks for itself, doesn't it? Simply put, a dwarf without a beard is not a Tolkienian Dwarf, no matter how canon he is in other ways.

As I previously stated, it seems difficult now to turn back, especially after two or three months of filming.


I see no point in this repeated discouraging others with how something is impossible or unlikely etc. I would appreciate if you stopped doing that. Thanks.
---------- Image "If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world." J.R.R. Tolkien - The Hobbit
Ilandir
Council Member
Posts: 475
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 23, 2011 08:49
I see no point in this repeated discouraging others with how something is impossible or unlikely etc. I would appreciate if you stopped doing that. Thanks.

And I see no point in repeating that there might still be a chance that they change their appearances. And after all, those are the facts, no use denying what's in front of our eyes.

but I don't expect Bombur to mysteriously grow a beard instead of what appear to be rather insane muttonchops. Haha.

Unless they change the event in Mirkwood when he falls into the river. Instead of falling to sleep he grows a long beard! then all the other "short-beards" have a dive and come out as long beards .... there, solved! (lol just joking) ... but it could be an idea ...
asea_aranion
Council Member
Posts: 533
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 23, 2011 09:11
That being said, I still don't believe that, even under those circumstances, the pride of a long, full beard would be lost.


Precisely. A dwarf may be subjected to many mishaps and prevail, but the fact that a Tolkienian Dwarf would rather die than suffer the shame of having his long beard shaved, rather speaks for itself, doesn't it? Simply put, a dwarf without a beard is not a Tolkienian Dwarf, no matter how canon he is in other ways.

I am in total agreement with you, and am very disheartened by this blatant disregard to canon, but I think that instead of dwelling on the negatives, I think it would be more fun to try and think of the potential positives.

but I don't expect Bombur to mysteriously grow a beard instead of what appear to be rather insane muttonchops. Haha.

Unless they change the event in Mirkwood when he falls into the river. Instead of falling to sleep he grows a long beard! then all the other "short-beards" have a dive and come out as long beards .... there, solved! (lol just joking) ... but it could be an idea ...

Hahaha! Or maybe there is some newly invented backstory about how Bombur was once a fierce dwarven warrior but he had an awful encounter with a dragon who burnt all the beard off his chin, and it never grew back, so now he defiantly grows his muttonchops as long as he can and never cuts them, but rather braids them and wears them around his neck. But the initial deep depression at the loss of his beard caused him to get very, very fat.

[Edited on 23/8/2011 by asea_aranion]
Ilandir
Council Member
Posts: 475
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 23, 2011 09:14
Hahaha! Or maybe there is some newly invented backstory about how Bombur was once a fierce dwarven warrior but he had an awful encounter with a dragon who burnt all the beard off his chin, and it never grew back, so now he defiantly grows his muttonchops as long as he can and never cuts them, but rather braids them and wears them around his neck. But the initial deep depression at the loss of his beard caused him to get very, very fat.

Well, that's not bad at all! I'd take that ...
asea_aranion
Council Member
Posts: 533
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 23, 2011 09:26
Hahaha! Or maybe there is some newly invented backstory about how Bombur was once a fierce dwarven warrior but he had an awful encounter with a dragon who burnt all the beard off his chin, and it never grew back, so now he defiantly grows his muttonchops as long as he can and never cuts them, but rather braids them and wears them around his neck. But the initial deep depression at the loss of his beard caused him to get very, very fat.

Well, that's not bad at all! I'd take that ...

I mean, if they're going to flesh out the backstory... go big or go home, right? Haha.

On another note, for those of you who miss the more traditional, long-bearded Tolkien dwarf...

http://www.moraya.net/lotr/1fotr/27councilofelrond/councilofelrond044.jpg
http://www.moraya.net/lotr/1fotr/27councilofelrond/councilofelrond364.jpg
http://www.moraya.net/lotr/1fotr/27councilofelrond/councilofelrond502.jpg

I'm a little obsessed with the dwarf sitting next to Gimli... the one with the massive forehead. Can we call him Gigwit? (Gimli is great... who is THAT?)

http://www.moraya.net/lotr/1fotr/27councilofelrond/councilofelrond514.jpg
http://www.moraya.net/lotr/1fotr/01prolog/prolog011.jpg

[Edited on 26/8/2011 by asea_aranion]

[Edited on 26/8/2011 by asea_aranion]
~nólemë~
Fan Creations Admin & Creations Forum Moderator
Posts: 10427
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 23, 2011 09:31
but I think that instead of dwelling on the negatives, I think it would be more fun to try and think of the potential positives.


When they come, I might. I am only repating my opinion in response to posts that make light of the issue, because a non-canon race is quite an issue in my eyes.

And I see no point in repeating that there might still be a chance that they change their appearances. And after all, those are the facts, no use denying what's in front of our eyes.


Last I heard, there was a pause in shooting until autumn or something like that. I can only hope that this was done with the intention of seeing the reaction of fans. Last I checked, there was nothing wrong with expressing a hope for something; biting one's tongue doesn't seem to solve many problems; had the fans been silent, we might have had Arwen at Helm's Deep. On the other hand, I somewhat resent bringing other people down for having a hope and being very near to calling them delusional or living in a dream.
---------- Image "If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world." J.R.R. Tolkien - The Hobbit
Ilandir
Council Member
Posts: 475
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 23, 2011 09:40

Last I heard, there was a pause in shooting until autumn or something like that. I can only hope that this was done with the intention of seeing the reaction of fans.

Probably, though mainly - as you may know, due to Martin Freeman's scheduling conflict. Still, they can't go back and change 54 days of shooting ...

Last I checked, there was nothing wrong with expressing a hope for something;

Of course not. I'm hopeful too! about a lot of things in fact. It's just that I found it a bit ironic when you stated we should stop saying that it's beyond hope when a couple of posts ago, you yourself stated about "hoping" they change the dwarves' appearances ... but anyway, let's not dwell on that.


I'm a little obsessed with the dwarf sitting next to Gimli... the one with the massive forehead. Can we call him Gigwit? (Gimli is great... who is THAT?)

Hehe! Gigwit that's great! I love those dwarves, though you see the problem ... they all look too much alike (i.e. it's hard to know who's who)


[Edited on 23/8/2011 by Ilandir]
asea_aranion
Council Member
Posts: 533
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 23, 2011 10:39
I'm a little obsessed with the dwarf sitting next to Gimli... the one with the massive forehead. Can we call him Gigwit? (Gimli is great... who is THAT?)

Hehe! Gigwit that's great! I love those dwarves, though you see the problem ... they all look too much alike (i.e. it's hard to know who's who)

I won't deny that those guys are a little prosthetic heavy, because they definitely are. And that may very well have played into how far the pendulum has swung in the other direction. I would have preferred some sort of happy medium between the two (though I did explain above a theory on why they may have turned out as they did.) But there are definitely some traits there that I would have liked to see incorporated in the company of The Hobbit. For example, the back of the most prominent dwarf's head in the 7 dwarf lords shot - if you're not going to have them wear hoods, something like that is cool. And many of them DO have cool braiding. As I've said, I totally love Oin and Gloin, and if I'm looking at him from a "Tolkien Dwarf" standpoint as opposed to a "Dwalin" standpoint, I think Dwalin is pretty good too. He doesn't look how HE is supposed to look, but he also doesn't look that BAD. I really don't even mind him being bald that much, because it's never said that he ISN'T, and it doesn't contradict anything that it says he IS.

Which I think circles back to my main point about my various complaints about the looks of the dwarves... it's not a complaint about things that have been fleshed out or filled in, but a complaint against things that have been blatantly contradicted that bugs me.

[Edited on 23/8/2011 by asea_aranion]
asea_aranion
Council Member
Posts: 533
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 23, 2011 10:44
Sidebar: I saw this quoted on another board and remembered reading it in a casting notice and rolling my eyes:

"Fili being the elder of the two (Fili is probably fair haired, but this is not essential.)"

Now, I'm going to CHOOSE to believe that it was intended to mean that the actor need not naturally be fair haired as a wig will be used.

However, it's not "probably" it's "is", and to those of us who respect Tolkien's work, it is essential, because it's how Tolkien wrote the character.

As an additional sidebar...

"His wife is an acclaimed beauty with a particularly fine beard. Gloin is the proud father of a young son, Gimli, who will go on to become part of the famous Fellowship of the Ring. "

It sounds like Gloin's wife has a more respectable beard than half the members of the company! Haha.

[Edited on 23/8/2011 by asea_aranion]
Aegor
CoE Volunteer
Posts: 984
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 24, 2011 12:44
Judging from the poll that's been on TORN for a while now I don't think you can count on fan intervention to grow these Dwarves a beard. 44% think they are perfect and 42% think they look really good. Only 2.5% really dislike them and I don't think that will be enough.

Though then again you never know. Star Trek Voyager's pilot was reshot because the heads from Paramount didn't like Janeway's hair style.


But I think the word canon is a poor argument here. In the Hobbit Tolkien certianly didn't describe the majority of dwarves in much detail. Dori, Nori, Ori, Oin and Gloin are all introduced in a single sentence and all that was stated was their cloak color and thier belts. And talking about character development, did anyone really had an arc in the book, except Thorin? I love the Hobbit but if we'd stick trully to every word that was written we'd have slightly tipsy singing Elves and talking spiders which would make for a very silly movie. I'm sure there will be enough burping, ale drinking and battle shouting from the dwarves to make them feel real, even with their modest beards.

In LotR Pippin and Legolas were done vastly different than in the book, yet nobody seems to mind them.
~nólemë~
Fan Creations Admin & Creations Forum Moderator
Posts: 10427
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 24, 2011 01:59
But I think the word canon is a poor argument here. In the Hobbit Tolkien certianly didn't describe the majority of dwarves in much detail.


Excuse me? I am talking about the entire universe. The long beards are featured in almost each single Middle-earth-centric book.
Provided your point concerns the beards that is. If not, just ignore the above.

I love the Hobbit but if we'd stick trully to every word that was written we'd have slightly tipsy singing Elves and talking spiders which would make for a very silly movie.


Silly movie in your opinion you mean. I would not mind, know of others who wouldn't, and I bet there would be quite a number in the end who would love it too. The 'talking trees' were also generally accepted in LotR, and few seemed to find tipsy hobbits or Dwarf silly.

I'm sure there will be enough burping, ale drinking and battle shouting from the dwarves to make them feel real, even with their modest beards.


Alas, I fear you are right - Provided 'real' means 'not of Middle-earth' that is. I fall into the tiny category that desperately wishes to see Tolkien's characters as they are in his world, not crude repulsive thugs. Such disgusting things as burping are not even hinted at in the books, no matter how silly the characters might behave. I believe Tolkien ignored these things for a reason.

In LotR Pippin and Legolas were done vastly different than in the book, yet nobody seems to mind them.


True, but I don't see movie-Pippin missing furry feet and curly hair, and I don't see movie-Legolas missing pointy ears and stature.
Again, if your point wasn't directed at the non-beards, please feel free to ignore my comments.
---------- Image "If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world." J.R.R. Tolkien - The Hobbit
asea_aranion
Council Member
Posts: 533
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 24, 2011 03:49
Judging from the poll that's been on TORN for a while now I don't think you can count on fan intervention to grow these Dwarves a beard. 44% think they are perfect and 42% think they look really good. Only 2.5% really dislike them and I don't think that will be enough.

I was honestly really surprised by the results of that poll, considering a lot of the chatter I read on their message boards. However, I also see the same overwhelmingly positive response taking over PJ's Facebook page. I find it interesting that on the surface there's this really positive response but most in-depth discussion that I see going on is critical of the disregard of certain traits. I obviously have no idea why this is, except that I think there's a great deal of initial excitement that the film is being done at all, and that PJ is doing it, and that, behind the questionable costumes, there is a really great cast. I think that kind of takes over for a moment until it wears off and you realize "Waaait a minute... Thorin is supposed to have a blue hood..."


But I think the word canon is a poor argument here. In the Hobbit Tolkien certianly didn't describe the majority of dwarves in much detail. Dori, Nori, Ori, Oin and Gloin are all introduced in a single sentence and all that was stated was their cloak color and thier belts. And talking about character development, did anyone really had an arc in the book, except Thorin? I love the Hobbit but if we'd stick trully to every word that was written we'd have slightly tipsy singing Elves and talking spiders which would make for a very silly movie. I'm sure there will be enough burping, ale drinking and battle shouting from the dwarves to make them feel real, even with their modest beards.

While some of the dwarves did not get as vivid of a description at their initial introduction (The best ones going to Thorin, Dwalin, Balin, Bombur, Fili, and Kili) those that didn't definitely get some sort of established personality traits later in the story. If you just go off the first chapter, then yes, some of them don't have much to go on, but if you make a list for every character of all the different traits or habits he's portrayed as having over the course of the book, (which I would certainly hope you'd do if you were making a film...) you'd have a pretty solid starting point at the very least.

I also have seen that it's a common criticism of people who disagree with departing from canon that sticking to canon would result in something too silly, but when you think about it, The Hobbit IS silly. No, it's not a comedy, but it was written for a younger audience than LOTR, and there are a great deal of silly moments - even with the spiders. I don't recall the exact line, but something to the effect of "No spider has ever liked being called Attercop, and Tom-noddy, of course, is insulting to anybody." What? It's completely ridiculous, but it's also funny and endearing. Just like the argument the trolls have, or Bilbo being so concerned about his pocket handkerchief, or losing all of his buttons as he squeezes out the door of the goblin caves. That's one of the reasons I worried about the fighting at Trollshaws in the production video... I would hate to lose the humor of that scene, because it's so great.


In LotR Pippin and Legolas were done vastly different than in the book, yet nobody seems to mind them.

So was Faramir... and MOST people seem to mind that. Haha. And as noleme pointed out, the critique she is making right now can hardly be about the characters in full, as we have not seen them, but rather about the appearance that they have taken, and how it's lacking various fundamental traits of their race. She's right to point out (as I have as well) that it would be more akin to Pippin not having furry feet, or Legolas not having pointy ears. The main complaint here is the lack of a trait that is a distinguishing feature of a certain race.

[Edited on 24/8/2011 by asea_aranion]
Ilandir
Council Member
Posts: 475
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 24, 2011 05:23
Which I think circles back to my main point about my various complaints about the looks of the dwarves... it's not a complaint about things that have been fleshed out or filled in, but a complaint against things that have been blatantly contradicted that bugs me.

That's true and I can understand your position.

It sounds like Gloin's wife has a more respectable beard than half the members of the company! Haha.

Awesome! Hehe!

Judging from the poll that's been on TORN for a while now I don't think you can count on fan intervention to grow these Dwarves a beard. 44% think they are perfect and 42% think they look really good. Only 2.5% really dislike them and I don't think that will be enough.

Good point Aegor. In fact, I was going to post something similar from the TORN site, but it seems that mentioning that site is forbidden here - cos some people dislike it ... lol!
asea_aranion
Council Member
Posts: 533
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 24, 2011 05:40
In fact, I was going to post something similar from the TORN site, but it seems that mentioning that site is forbidden here - cos some people dislike it ... lol!


Whups, I didn't realize that... I've done it from time to time. They have a much more active message board over there, so sometimes I find it helpful to bring some of that info or discussion over here. I never wind up posting over there though - there's a lot of stuff that turns pretty hostile... haha.
Aegor
CoE Volunteer
Posts: 984
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 24, 2011 05:42
Excuse me? I am talking about the entire universe. The long beards are featured in almost each single Middle-earth-centric book.
Provided your point concerns the beards that is. If not, just ignore the above.


Like in the example I wrote, Tolkien didn't write that those 5 dwarves had big beards, at least not when he was introducing them. He just described their cloak and belt color. Someone who picked Hobbit as his first book would then probably imagine them completelly different than you or me might. I can understand that you personally envision dwarves with a must have beard, and that's ok. So do I for the most part. But I think it can work without it as well.


Alas, I fear you are right - Provided 'real' means 'not of Middle-earth' that is. I fall into the tiny category that desperately wishes to see Tolkien's characters as they are in his world, not crude repulsive thugs. Such disgusting things as burping are not even hinted at in the books, no matter how silly the characters might behave. I believe Tolkien ignored these things for a reason.


What do you think of Children of Hurin then? I don't see Middle-Earth as such a clean polite place. Though we mostly see people in power, kings and captains, who would have better education and have better mannirism than you average Joe. I imagine that the regular citizen of Gondor or Rohan would swear and drink beer and gamble after work. High Elves would be enlightened and graceful but an average Mirkwood Elf, I don't think as much. And we did saw Hobbits engage in gossip of rather malicious nature (such as the Sandyman part in FotR), not to mention the Sackville-Bagginses.


True, but I don't see movie-Pippin missing furry feet and curly hair, and I don't see movie-Legolas missing pointy ears and stature.
Again, if your point wasn't directed at the non-beards, please feel free to ignore my comments.


Looking at canon, I find the loss of furry feet would be a much much lesser change that the major personallity change Pippin got.

But what I'm saying here is that beards alone don't make dwarves, and they can work just as well without them (providing there's a proper voice, stance, attitude... which I'm sure there will be).
asea_aranion
Council Member
Posts: 533
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 24, 2011 06:00
True, but I don't see movie-Pippin missing furry feet and curly hair, and I don't see movie-Legolas missing pointy ears and stature.
Again, if your point wasn't directed at the non-beards, please feel free to ignore my comments.


Looking at canon, I find the loss of furry feet would be a much much lesser change that the major personallity change Pippin got.

But what I'm saying here is that beards alone don't make dwarves, and they can work just as well without them (providing there's a proper voice, stance, attitude... which I'm sure there will be).

While I agree that a personality change and a physicality change are two totally different things, for the time being, all we can discuss for The Hobbit are physicality changes because we don't have many clips to watch to get an idea of the personalities that have been created or changed. For right now, we have to discuss what we can see, which is beardless dwarves, a comparable concept to non-furry-footed hobbits, and short elves.

All we have to go on is a few clips of Bag End, Trollshaws, and Riddles in the Dark (which would be fun to discuss if anyone wants to shift away from the dwarves' publcity stills for a moment! Haha)
Ilandir
Council Member
Posts: 475
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 24, 2011 08:41

All we have to go on is a few clips of Bag End, Trollshaws, and Riddles in the Dark (which would be fun to discuss if anyone wants to shift away from the dwarves' publcity stills for a moment! Haha)

Yes, let's do that!
asea_aranion
Council Member
Posts: 533
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 24, 2011 09:16

All we have to go on is a few clips of Bag End, Trollshaws, and Riddles in the Dark (which would be fun to discuss if anyone wants to shift away from the dwarves' publcity stills for a moment! Haha)

Yes, let's do that!

Can I start with saying how excited I am that Andy Serkis will be playing Gollum?

I wonder if he will be asked to voice any of the trolls. I haven't seen anyone cast for that yet, and I know that Andy did the voice for the Witch-King, and pretty much all of the orcs in one of the scenes in Two Towers.

Wouldn't it be funny if he did all 3 and was arguing with himself? If not Andy, who do you think would be a good choice? (Or has someone heard casting that I haven't?)
Ilandir
Council Member
Posts: 475
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 24, 2011 10:25
I think Andy Serkis would be a good choice. He convinced me he was both Gollum and the Witch-King ... and a couple of orcs. So I can't imagine why he can't also play the three trolls - also motion-captured!

asea_aranion
Council Member
Posts: 533
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 24, 2011 10:36
I think Andy Serkis would be a good choice. He convinced me he was both Gollum and the Witch-King ... and a couple of orcs. So I can't imagine why he can't also play the three trolls - also motion-captured!



I was thinking that too - I assume the trolls will be mo-capped, and Andy Serkis is kind of the poster child for mo-cap performances. Haha. I suppose they could just be entirely digital, but either way, I think Andy would be an awesome choice for voices. Maybe something similar to the "We ain't 'ad nothin' but maggoty bread for three stinkin' days" orc's voice.
Ilandir
Council Member
Posts: 475
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 25, 2011 04:41
I was thinking that too - I assume the trolls will be mo-capped, and Andy Serkis is kind of the poster child for mo-cap performances. Haha. I suppose they could just be entirely digital, but either way, I think Andy would be an awesome choice for voices. Maybe something similar to the "We ain't 'ad nothin' but maggoty bread for three stinkin' days" orc's voice.

Hehe true!

What I'm mainly concerned about this scene is continuity. We've all seen from the FOTR extended edition the three trolls. They clearly look like they've been turned into stone during their argument (as was in the book). However, with the introduction of this "fight scene" (according to the production video), I was wondering how they'll manage to make the trolls fall into that "talkative" position after the fighting .... unless they ignore the FOTR scene completely and change the outcome ...
asea_aranion
Council Member
Posts: 533
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 25, 2011 05:52
I was thinking that too - I assume the trolls will be mo-capped, and Andy Serkis is kind of the poster child for mo-cap performances. Haha. I suppose they could just be entirely digital, but either way, I think Andy would be an awesome choice for voices. Maybe something similar to the "We ain't 'ad nothin' but maggoty bread for three stinkin' days" orc's voice.

Hehe true!

What I'm mainly concerned about this scene is continuity. We've all seen from the FOTR extended edition the three trolls. They clearly look like they've been turned into stone during their argument (as was in the book). However, with the introduction of this "fight scene" (according to the production video), I was wondering how they'll manage to make the trolls fall into that "talkative" position after the fighting .... unless they ignore the FOTR scene completely and change the outcome ...


As far as the continuity issues are concerned, I'm curious to see where they're going to make continuity a priority, and where they're not. The most obvious continuity flaw is the fact that Martin Freeman, not Ian Holm is Bilbo, considering Bilbo in the beginning of FotR is supposed to look the same as Bilbo when he finds the ring, more or less. (I think I've joked already in here that I'd have totally accepted Ian-Holm-With-His-Face-Taped-Back as Bilbo in The Hobbit... though I also love Martin Freeman and think he's a great choice.) An interesting sidenote to that is that complaints of Elijah Wood being too young to be 50 year old Frodo in LotR can be countered with the same logic... but I digress.

As far as the trolls go, I am very curious if the actual trolls will end up looking like the stone trolls we saw briefly in FotR.

For reference:

Image
Image
Image
Image

Clearest image here:

http://charles-song.com/gallery/d/495-3/StoneTrolls.jpg

I hope that this design is kept. Except that I hope they have pants in the film, considering the importance of them having pockets. (I'm a little confused on that point... in the book it's mentioned that "luckily" the key fell from the troll's pocket before he turned to stone, as though the clothing turned to stone too, but the trolls we see here would appear to have turned to stone and their clothing didn't, and has worn away)But I like that they have a more human look to them than the trolls we saw in the trilogy. I feel like that makes it more believable that they would be smarter than for example, the Moria cave troll, and capable of having a conversation. (Even if it is all an argument.) For people who are concerned about such things being "too silly", I think the MORE human they look, the less ridiculous it seems for them to speak.

As far as the battle sequence that apparently now takes place at Trollshaws, I don't think that the trolls arguing and the dwarves fighting them are necessarily mutually exclusive. It could be that instead of going one by one and having a bag thrown over their heads, they come all at once and fight it out, but STILL end up with bags over their heads, and caught. I really hope that it ends up happening something like that.

[Edited on 26/8/2011 by asea_aranion]

[Edited on 26/8/2011 by asea_aranion]
Ilandir
Council Member
Posts: 475
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 25, 2011 06:05

As far as the battle sequence that apparently now takes place at Trollshaws, I don't think that the trolls arguing and the dwarves fighting them are necessarily mutually exclusive. It could be that instead of going one by one and having a bag thrown over their heads, they come all at once and fight it out, but STILL end up with bags over their heads, and caught. I really hope that it ends up happening something like that.

Yes I think that's a very good deduction, I hope they keep it that way.

With regards to the Freeman/Holm continuity, I do agree that there's that one scene in FOTR will Ian Holm as Bilbo, but it somehow doesn't bother me that Freeman will take his place - unlike other continuity details.
asea_aranion
Council Member
Posts: 533
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 25, 2011 07:22

As far as the battle sequence that apparently now takes place at Trollshaws, I don't think that the trolls arguing and the dwarves fighting them are necessarily mutually exclusive. It could be that instead of going one by one and having a bag thrown over their heads, they come all at once and fight it out, but STILL end up with bags over their heads, and caught. I really hope that it ends up happening something like that.

Yes I think that's a very good deduction, I hope they keep it that way.

With regards to the Freeman/Holm continuity, I do agree that there's that one scene in FOTR will Ian Holm as Bilbo, but it somehow doesn't bother me that Freeman will take his place - unlike other continuity details.

Well, Gollum is bound to have some continuity issues since he has that problem even within the trilogy itself. (Though it has never really bothered me, because FotR Gollum really has about 10 seconds of screentime in the entire film... so I don't think this will really bother me either.)

And to go back to the dwarves and the trolls... Based on the way they're frozen, I could almost imagine one (or maybe two) of them having a bagged up dwarf in their hand when they turn to stone. Again, I know a lot of people are against making it silly, but it would be a funny gag if perhaps Bombur was in the hand of the troll with the slightly closed hand and had to be pried out. (With difficulty, of course, since he's so fat.)

[Edited on 25/8/2011 by asea_aranion]
Ilandir
Council Member
Posts: 475
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 25, 2011 08:33

And to go back to the dwarves and the trolls... Based on the way they're frozen, I could almost imagine one (or maybe two) of them having a bagged up dwarf in their hand when they turn to stone. Again, I know a lot of people are against making it silly, but it would be a funny gag if perhaps Bombur was in the hand of the troll with the slightly closed hand and had to be pried out. (With difficulty, of course, since he's so fat.)

Yeah, I'm sure they'll put in these bits and pieces (and tweaks) just to lighten up the mood abit
asea_aranion
Council Member
Posts: 533
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 25, 2011 08:55

And to go back to the dwarves and the trolls... Based on the way they're frozen, I could almost imagine one (or maybe two) of them having a bagged up dwarf in their hand when they turn to stone. Again, I know a lot of people are against making it silly, but it would be a funny gag if perhaps Bombur was in the hand of the troll with the slightly closed hand and had to be pried out. (With difficulty, of course, since he's so fat.)

Yeah, I'm sure they'll put in these bits and pieces (and tweaks) just to lighten up the mood abit

As if there's not enough picking on Bombur for being fat in the book already... Hahahaha!

(To make amends, here's is an adorable picture of Bombur)
Image

[Edited on 25/8/2011 by asea_aranion]
Ilandir
Council Member
Posts: 475
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 25, 2011 09:31
I like this picture though it doesn't seem he's THAT fat ... I always thought he looked the exact same size as all the other Alan Lee dwarves - it might be his posture or something else. Still, I like it very much!
asea_aranion
Council Member
Posts: 533
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 25, 2011 09:49
It makes one wonder what the point of letting Bombur tag along was anyway... to make fun of him? Haha. However, I will say, I love the drawing because even though I don't think he's quite fat enough, he looks just as I feel a Tolkien dwarf in The Hobbit should.

To circle back to your continuity comments of earlier, I'm also interested in what is going to happen with the weapons of the dwarves. They seem to have put a good deal of effort into weapons that, if we're following the book, may never have even existed, and if they did, certainly not for long.

Perhaps the reasoning behind the battle sequence in the Trollshaws was to allow the dwarves an opportunity to actually use their weapons before the goblins take everything from them?
Ilandir
Council Member
Posts: 475
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 26, 2011 06:09
To circle back to your continuity comments of earlier, I'm also interested in what is going to happen with the weapons of the dwarves. They seem to have put a good deal of effort into weapons that, if we're following the book, may never have even existed, and if they did, certainly not for long.

Perhaps the reasoning behind the battle sequence in the Trollshaws was to allow the dwarves an opportunity to actually use their weapons before the goblins take everything from them?

Yeah I thought about the weapons as well. It could be as you mentioned regarding the action at Trollshaws. And probably, they would be given a few weapons by Beorn during their stay there - because it would look funny having only Gandalf, Thorin and Bilbo with a sword and the rest are all empty handed!

[Edited on 26/8/2011 by Ilandir]
asea_aranion
Council Member
Posts: 533
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 26, 2011 07:54
To circle back to your continuity comments of earlier, I'm also interested in what is going to happen with the weapons of the dwarves. They seem to have put a good deal of effort into weapons that, if we're following the book, may never have even existed, and if they did, certainly not for long.

Perhaps the reasoning behind the battle sequence in the Trollshaws was to allow the dwarves an opportunity to actually use their weapons before the goblins take everything from them?

Yeah I thought about the weapons as well. It could be as you mentioned regarding the action at Trollshaws. And probably, they would be given a few weapons by Beorn during their stay there - because it would look funny having only Gandalf, Thorin and Bilbo with a sword and the rest are all empty handed!

[Edited on 26/8/2011 by Ilandir]


Beorn gives them bows and arrows, but they waste all the arrows in Mirkwood attempting to hunt. Apart from that, they are mentioned as having knives that were confisgated by the wood elves during their capture, but apart from Thorin having Orcrist, they're not mentioned to have anything else until they gear up at the Lonely Mountain for the Bo5A.

I feel like I brought this up waaay earlier in the thread, so I'm going to see if I can find that quote... (I tried to specify who was speaking here since I'm digging up conversations from so far back in the thread)

asea_aranion:
Another thing I noticed is that, while everyone in the photos is armed, I recall no mention of them having weapons at Bilbo's. Fili and Kili have a supply of tools, and everyone has instruments with them. (I always wondered what happened to those... were they left in Hobbiton? Were they brought along and lost to the Goblins? It says that the ponies were heavily laden with packages, but all it mentions that was in them is food and dry clothes.)

I find the weapons thing interesting for a variety of reasons.

A) There is no mention of any of them weilding weapons except for Thorin taking Orcrist from the troll cave.
B) When Thorin fights the trolls, he grabs a branch from the fire, which would lead me to believe that he was otherwise unarmed, otherwise, wouldn't it make more sense to go after them with a sword/axe/spear?
C) Even presuming that they DID all have weapons when they left the Shire, they lost all of their gear when they were kidnapped by the goblins. Whatever they had when they left Hobbiton is lost VERY early in the story. Thorin is the only dwarf who draws a weapon during the encounter with the goblins, and it is Orcrist.
D) They are given bows and arrows by Beorn, but these don't make it past Mirkwood.
E) When they arrive in Laketown, they are asked to lay down their arms, and they respond that they have none, and it is stated that their knives were taken by the elves.

All of this leads me to believe that the dwarves in these photos are probably armed with weapons found when they reached the Lonely Mountain, since they seem to have set off with gear more appropriate for travel, hunting, and mining than battle. (Which makes sense, seeing as they never meant to launch any kind of frontal assault against the dragon.) This is actually a comforting thought because it clears up a lot of things that otherwise seem to not match the book... there's still the opportunity to put them in their proper colored hoods and cloaks at the beginning of the story, and the items found at the Lonely Mountain were not all of dwarven make, so that can explain the very varied look of the weaponry, which was compiled from all the launds Smaug destroyed (I've always wondered how he carried it all back though... I usually don't picture dragons with opposable thumbs! Haha)


Obviously, since then I have watched the production videos and know that my hopes for the weapons being acquired later in the film are not true.

asea_aranion:
spotted:
Practicality: some of theise weapons look impressive, but I couldnt see how it would work out in action. (mabye they want the orcs to laugh to death?)
The weapons I'm doubtful about in regards to practicality are Kili's sword (wouldn't the narrow bit in the middle lessen the strength and stability of the weapon and make it more prone to losing its shape?) Thorin's "axe" (Is that even what it is? the angle of the blade seems very impractical and likely to get stuck) and Ori and Fili's swords (again, very strange angles at the tip of the blade... while Fili's may have some practical application, Ori's seems at VERY high risk for getting stuck in a body if ever used with a stabbing motion)


asea_aranion:

spotted:
2. Size: with all weapons, you need to actually lift it. Seeing as dwraves are pretty strong, wemay not think it a problem. However, if it was bulky and you needed to carry it on a long journy, which as we have pointed out shouldnt be neccicairy in the first place, it willbe more a pain than a help.

This is a good point as well, considering many of these weapons are QUITE large and heavy, and we have to remember that the dwarves, while they are in possession of their weapons, are traveling by pony. Would some of the larger hammers and spears be the most practical for travel on ponies?


Another random thing that I was thinking about is that I wasn't a fan of the fact that Orcrist looks far more like Sting than it does like Glamdring. I think this is probably just one of the inherent problems of backtracking, because it's quite possible that The Hobbit wasn't really referenced much in research for LotR, (as is quite obvious by the lack of a glowing Glamdring throughout LotR... any time Sting was glowing, Glamdring should have been as well) and therefore certain details were left out. Glamdring and Orcrist are both swords, Sting is actually a knife, not a sword. It served AS a sword for Bilbo because it was so small. If Orcrist and Glamdring are both swords of Gondolin, they should really look much more like each other than like Sting. And Glamdring has never quite looked grand enough to have been the sword of the king of Gondolin... but that's neither here nor there (again, I assume that's probably a result as not referencing The Hobbit when shooting LotR).
Ilandir
Council Member
Posts: 475
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 26, 2011 09:36
Beorn gives them bows and arrows,

Yes he does, but I thought they might add that little extra arsenal and include shiny axes and cool blades!

With regards to your previous posts, I do believe that they need some sort of weapons - even though they seem not to have any particular ones when they start their adventure. But it makes more sense to give them something to wield - considering they're embarking on one of the most dangerous quests, you'd think they would carry something for their own safety! hehe

What I seem to find somewhat impractical is Bifur's weapon - it's kind of a sword blended with a spear of some sort. It doesn't seem well balanced due to the heavy weight put on top of it - so I'm not sure how easy it would be to wield it well.

And Glamdring has never quite looked grand enough to have been the sword of the king of Gondolin... but that's neither here nor there (again, I assume that's probably a result as not referencing The Hobbit when shooting LotR).

Yes that's one of the things I'm looking forward to see. Will they make Glamdring glow or not to keep it in line with the Trilogy?

Also, I'm not sure about this, but it seems that Orcrist has dwarf runes on it ... is this correct? I don't remember reading in the book of any dwarf runes on the sword and after all, they were made by Elves and not Dwarves, so how can that be? Or have I got it all wrong somewhere?
asea_aranion
Council Member
Posts: 533
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 26, 2011 10:20
Beorn gives them bows and arrows,

Yes he does, but I thought they might add that little extra arsenal and include shiny axes and cool blades!

With regards to your previous posts, I do believe that they need some sort of weapons - even though they seem not to have any particular ones when they start their adventure. But it makes more sense to give them something to wield - considering they're embarking on one of the most dangerous quests, you'd think they would carry something for their own safety! hehe

What I seem to find somewhat impractical is Bifur's weapon - it's kind of a sword blended with a spear of some sort. It doesn't seem well balanced due to the heavy weight put on top of it - so I'm not sure how easy it would be to wield it well.

I agree that Bifur's weapon seems a bit top-heavy and cumbersome - both to travel with and to wield, though I WILL admit to having seen (and played with... they're SO fun) similar weapons from our own history.

The biggest in the following pictures tops out at about 24 inches. Bifur's seem to extend to almost 1/3 of his own body height. But if I do the math... I believe dwarves are 4'-5' tall, so say he's 4'5", that would come out to about 17 inches, which really isn't IMPOSSIBLE... (it would be comparable to a 6' human wielding the biggest polearm pictured below, the bardiche) but it probably wasn't particularly travel friendly.

It would have been cool to see him with something closer resembling a halberd or a poleaxe:
Image
Image

Or any of these more reasonable polearms:
Image

Ugh! Now you've rekindled my love of medieval weaponry! I'm going to spend the rest of my afternoon staring at old-but-still-shiney-and-awesome objects... Haha.


And Glamdring has never quite looked grand enough to have been the sword of the king of Gondolin... but that's neither here nor there (again, I assume that's probably a result as not referencing The Hobbit when shooting LotR).

Yes that's one of the things I'm looking forward to see. Will they make Glamdring glow or not to keep it in line with the Trilogy?

Also, I'm not sure about this, but it seems that Orcrist has dwarf runes on it ... is this correct? I don't remember reading in the book of any dwarf runes on the sword and after all, they were made by Elves and not Dwarves, so how can that be? Or have I got it all wrong somewhere?

I'm not sure if they'll wind up changing Glamdring at all, but it will certainly be interesting to see!

I just looked up the high-res photo of Orcrist, and there are definitely what would appear to be Cirth runes on the sword. That COULD be accurate, or it COULD be wrong, for a couple of reasons:
-> One, it is predominantly Dwarves that we see using the Cirth runes, NOT elves, (Elves pretty much stopped using it after the invention of Tengwar) BUT the elves were the ones who invented Cirth runes, originally called Certhas Daeron, (later called Angerthas Daeron). I'm trying to find more specifics that include dates to determine what kind of runes would have been used in Gondolin at that time.
-> Two, I'm finding some information that says that Gondolin had their own series of runes that was slightly different from Cirth. This actually makes sense, because in The Hobbit, the swords have to be taken to Elrond to determine what the runes say, and it is reasonable to believe that Gandalf may not have been able to read the Gondolin version, but he can read Cirth - he reads Balin's tomb in Moria, and the book. Not to mention the fact that he labels his fireworks with both Tengwar and Cirth "G"...

BUT everything I just said is irrelevant, because when treated as Cirth, the runes seen on Thorin's sword spell... you guessed it...

O R KH R I S T

[Edited on 26/8/2011 by asea_aranion]
Elthir
Council Member
Posts: 433
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 26, 2011 05:41
Yes The Hobbit notes that there are runes (thus the Certar not the Tengwar) on Orcrist.

Interestingly, for the 1960 Hobbit Tolkien attempted to correct the problem of why Gandalf couldn't read the runes, explaining in the revision that there was dried blood obscuring the writing.



[Edited on 27/8/2011 by Elthir]
Ilandir
Council Member
Posts: 475
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 26, 2011 10:15
Yes The Hobbit notes that there are runes (thus the Certar not the Tengwar) on Orcrist.

Interestingly, for the 1960 Hobbit Tolkien attempted to correct the problem of why Gandalf couldn't read the runes, explaining in the revision that there was dried blood obscuring the writing.

Oh I see, thanks for that clarification!

Also, regarding the weapons, I've just noticed that in the production video, during the fighting at Trollshaws, Thorin uses a great two-handed sword - so it's definitely not that axe-thing he's holding in the photo. So I wonder when he will be using that axe during the film ...

[Edited on 27/8/2011 by Ilandir]
<< First2324252627Last >>
Members Online
Print Friendly, PDF & Email