What if PJ wanted to film Silmarilion; would he make all the elves look different by making them fat, ugly etc?
Unlike the TH & LotR, the Silmarilion rights are wholly owned by the Tolkien family, and PJ has said more than once, they're not exactly thrilled with him. The chance of the Silmarilion making it to film is pretty slim to begin with, but the chance that PJ would put it to film isn't even worth contemplating, as it'll never happen.
I know that the chance to see Silmarilion in the big screen is almost zero at the present time. I only mentioned Silmarilion, to make a point: If PJ wanted to make a movie about a lot of elves, would he make them look unelven (short, fat, ugly etc) just to make them different? What would then be the reaction of the fans? I am quite astonished that so many people have accepted the look of the dwarves in TH, although Tolkien have always described the dwarves as the Long-beards that have a pride about their long beards. The longer the beard, the most respected the dwarf. And then you see Kili that has a 5-day beard and Thorin that has a 4-week beard. I will not even comment on the (lack of) beards of Fili, Ori, Bofur.
I also want to enjoy the films. I will see them on day 1 in cinema and probably go again multiple times, if the movies are that good. I just want to express my disappointment about the way that dwarves look...
If I need to see this movie, I need to understand what the characters WANT!
So, these like 11 dwarves and 1 human. They want to get an old dwarven (abandoned?) city back. From whom? Is it filled with orcs? Why was it abandoned?
If so, wouldn't it be in the best interest to use an army of dwarves? If it where for the benefit of all dwarves? Are there no more dwarves left to find?
And Gandalf is afraid to do the mission? Isn't he much more powerful than any of them? And what where the exact reason to send a sniveling halfling with no combat experience instead?
There are 13 dwarves and a hobbit and they want to reclaim Mount Erebor (their former home) from dragon Smaug. They cannot initiate an open war because it is too risky. The plan is to sneak in and assassinate the dragon.
There are 13 dwarves and a hobbit and they want to reclaim Mount Erebor (their former home) from dragon Smaug. They cannot initiate an open war because it is too risky. The plan is to sneak in and assassinate the dragon.
Gandalf is not doing this mission, he only helps them in the start. He has other problems to solve, that don't let him go all the way with them. So, he is afraid for their lives and the success of the mission.
Without trying to give too much away, the halfling (Bilbo) has abilties/talents that the dwarves don't. This is why they hire him even though Bilbo doesn't understand at first why he is being hired. Personal growth and forms of heroism are central themes of the story, especially with Bilbo.
You also have to remember this is a childrens book published 75 years ago where Tolkien would tell his kids before he eventually published it.
Just want to see how they did the dragon, for better or worse maybe some advice with the people that make skyrim could help , besides dragons there become cockroaches, they've a pretty good design.
Atm, i'm looking foward to see Rurouni Kenshin (Samurai X), the review is praising the movie as the first live action that actually did it right.
I am quite astonished that so many people have accepted the look of the dwarves in TH, although Tolkien have always described the dwarves as the Long-beards that have a pride about their long beards. The longer the beard, the most respected the dwarf. And then you see Kili that has a 5-day beard and Thorin that has a 4-week beard. I will not even comment on the (lack of) beards of Fili, Ori, Bofur.
Initially, I was a little bit disappointed with how they've been portrayed. However, I also realise that doing a straight representation of the book to movie would be comical and hilarious. PJ probably didn't want to have 13 dwarves looking all the same so I understand him taking some artistic license.
@Metal_Hurlant Do Gloin, Oin, Bifur, Nori or Balin look the same? All of them are different, but they all have a dwarven look (except of Nori's hair). I believe that they could have done the rest of the dwarves in a similar, yet different but still dwarven, way.
I think you could do them differently but when you have 13 dwarves with long beards running around, the audience will get confused as to who is who. I'll probably get confused too. So I can understand why PJ did them very differently.
Is it a true reflection of the characters in the books? Definitely not. Will the audience be able to distinguish easily between each of the dwarves? I think so. And this is why PJ has probably done it this way.
I still don't like how PJ treated Gimli in The Two Towers. He seemed to come across too much as the comic relief.
There are 13 dwarves and a hobbit and they want to reclaim Mount Erebor (their former home) from dragon Smaug. They cannot initiate an open war because it is too risky. The plan is to sneak in and assassinate the dragon.
Noo! They wanted to kill the dragon but all the mighty warrirors were busy fighting one another in distant lands, that is why they settled on burglary, and here is our little Mr Bilbo Baggins, the Hobbit the chosen and selected Burglar. I think they are mostly interested in the treasure, their lust for treasure is described quite a lot in the book as I remember.
When the dwarves aren't happy with the choice Gandalf chides them saying "you can stop at thirteen and have all the bad luck you like!"
I've decided that this movie will be awesome if I just stop thinking of it as The Hobbit per se and a lot more as the spiritual predecessor/successor to LoTR. Going into detail re: the liberation of Mirkwood and such seems like a cool idea, and I have no doubt that PJ will do it justice in that uniquely PJ way he has. I agree that three movies does seem like overkill, but depending on how the above is handled I'm cautiously optimistic.
I started reading the Hobbit again in candlelight during the past week when I lost power from Hurricane Sandy. I'm only about a third of the way through it yet. (At this writing I'm at the point where I expect the first film of the Hobbit trilogy will likely leave off.) But I've really been struck by a few things.
First, when I read the book for the first time at the age of fourteen I knew nothing of D&D. But reading it now I can see the basic D&D conventions so clearly and unmistakably embedded within it. Of course I also realized that looking back once I became acquainted with D&D, but this subsequent read makes it ever so plain. The descriptions of Bilbo's thieving skills are especially remarkable for this, to the point of him using stealth, hiding in shadows, and the question of whether to backstab or not.
The very notion of "adventuring"... dungeon crawling, riddle-solving, the races and classes, the preciousness of enchanted weapons, the lust for treasure, sifting through vanquished enemies' loot, becoming more proficient with each successive encounter--it's all there. The book serves as a blueprint for D&D.
The second thing I'm coming away with is how "low magic" it is... and how much I prefer that. Gandalf, who is actually a very powerful wizard doesn't use much more than cantrips and low level spells.* The magic that is there therefore feels a lot more special.
The third thing I noticed is that Gandalf behaves in many ways like the Dungeon Master in a D&D game. He's really the one pulling the strings. And he saves the party's bacon more than once when they're not quite up to the challenge.
And lastly, I was struck by how... well, twee... the narrative is. It is charming as all get out, to be sure. But it borders on almost excessive cuteness. There are some things in the book that I think will be hard to make work in the film along these lines, such as the dwarves' and elves' songs. Even goblins sing! The style of song Tolkien uses probably won't translate well to modern audiences. Here's a snip from the Rivendell elves singing as the party arrives there:
O! What are you seeking, And where are you making? The faggots are reeking, The bannocks are baking! O! tril-lil-lil-lolly the valley is jolly, ha! ha!
Anyway, all-in-all I am loving this second read this as I await the film. Between this and the re-release of of Baldur's Gate it's some pretty darn good times for high fantasy aficionados.
* At one point when Gandalf could have presumably used a much more powerful spell to avoid being overrun by a mob he uses what would be a 3rd level spell in 2e AD&D--and the party is still overtaken (or nearly all of them are).
Gandalf was so powerful that Tolkien realised that he'd have to find something else for him to be doing, otherwise the quest would go off without a hitch!
It's interesting that in the Hobbit Gandalf comes off as much more vulnerable and fallible than we all remember him in the Lord of the Rings. He's not Gandalf the White yet. He uses his wits more than his magic.
Got to say that my favourite Gandalf is probably the Hobbit Gandalf, as recorded in the 1968 radio dramatisation, he sounds like a camp Alec Guinness! I'll be alone in that, I'm sure.
Actually Gandalf is maia (maia is singular of maiar) but he has taken form of flesh and bone and he entered Arda, after he took his form of Gandalf the Grey he was able to get killed. And while Saruman was considered to be the most powerful one of istari Gandalf got the Ring of Fire from Círdan. (Totally off topic in a off topic here but figured I want to post it out anyways.) And if I remember correctly wasn't Gandalf servant of Manwe and Varda and Saruman servant of Aule?
The way I see it, when Saruman and Gandalf pitch up in middle earth, Saruman is all flash and bluster and so get's taken for the leader, whereas Gandalf is more the silent brooding type who takes a back seat (though more wise) that Tolkien seemed to like re-using (Aragorn, Faramir, maybe even Samwise - who is less stupid than the film makes out, I'm pretty sure they give a lot of his insights to other characters in the films.)
Comments
The chance of the Silmarilion making it to film is pretty slim to begin with, but the chance that PJ would put it to film isn't even worth contemplating, as it'll never happen.
I am quite astonished that so many people have accepted the look of the dwarves in TH, although Tolkien have always described the dwarves as the Long-beards that have a pride about their long beards. The longer the beard, the most respected the dwarf. And then you see Kili that has a 5-day beard and Thorin that has a 4-week beard. I will not even comment on the (lack of) beards of Fili, Ori, Bofur.
So, these like 11 dwarves and 1 human. They want to get an old dwarven (abandoned?) city back. From whom? Is it filled with orcs? Why was it abandoned?
If so, wouldn't it be in the best interest to use an army of dwarves? If it where for the benefit of all dwarves? Are there no more dwarves left to find?
And Gandalf is afraid to do the mission? Isn't he much more powerful than any of them? And what where the exact reason to send a sniveling halfling with no combat experience instead?
Could someone PLEASE enlighten me!
What about the halfling/Gandalf though?
You also have to remember this is a childrens book published 75 years ago where Tolkien would tell his kids before he eventually published it.
Atm, i'm looking foward to see Rurouni Kenshin (Samurai X), the review is praising the movie as the first live action that actually did it right.
I think you could do them differently but when you have 13 dwarves with long beards running around, the audience will get confused as to who is who. I'll probably get confused too. So I can understand why PJ did them very differently.
Is it a true reflection of the characters in the books? Definitely not. Will the audience be able to distinguish easily between each of the dwarves? I think so. And this is why PJ has probably done it this way.
I still don't like how PJ treated Gimli in The Two Towers. He seemed to come across too much as the comic relief.
When the dwarves aren't happy with the choice Gandalf chides them saying "you can stop at thirteen and have all the bad luck you like!"
First, when I read the book for the first time at the age of fourteen I knew nothing of D&D. But reading it now I can see the basic D&D conventions so clearly and unmistakably embedded within it. Of course I also realized that looking back once I became acquainted with D&D, but this subsequent read makes it ever so plain. The descriptions of Bilbo's thieving skills are especially remarkable for this, to the point of him using stealth, hiding in shadows, and the question of whether to backstab or not.
The very notion of "adventuring"... dungeon crawling, riddle-solving, the races and classes, the preciousness of enchanted weapons, the lust for treasure, sifting through vanquished enemies' loot, becoming more proficient with each successive encounter--it's all there. The book serves as a blueprint for D&D.
The second thing I'm coming away with is how "low magic" it is... and how much I prefer that. Gandalf, who is actually a very powerful wizard doesn't use much more than cantrips and low level spells.* The magic that is there therefore feels a lot more special.
The third thing I noticed is that Gandalf behaves in many ways like the Dungeon Master in a D&D game. He's really the one pulling the strings. And he saves the party's bacon more than once when they're not quite up to the challenge.
And lastly, I was struck by how... well, twee... the narrative is. It is charming as all get out, to be sure. But it borders on almost excessive cuteness. There are some things in the book that I think will be hard to make work in the film along these lines, such as the dwarves' and elves' songs. Even goblins sing! The style of song Tolkien uses probably won't translate well to modern audiences. Here's a snip from the Rivendell elves singing as the party arrives there:
O! What are you seeking,
And where are you making?
The faggots are reeking,
The bannocks are baking!
O! tril-lil-lil-lolly
the valley is jolly,
ha! ha!
Anyway, all-in-all I am loving this second read this as I await the film. Between this and the re-release of of Baldur's Gate it's some pretty darn good times for high fantasy aficionados.
* At one point when Gandalf could have presumably used a much more powerful spell to avoid being overrun by a mob he uses what would be a 3rd level spell in 2e AD&D--and the party is still overtaken (or nearly all of them are).
(Totally off topic in a off topic here but figured I want to post it out anyways.)
And if I remember correctly wasn't Gandalf servant of Manwe and Varda and Saruman servant of Aule?
The way I see it, when Saruman and Gandalf pitch up in middle earth, Saruman is all flash and bluster and so get's taken for the leader, whereas Gandalf is more the silent brooding type who takes a back seat (though more wise) that Tolkien seemed to like re-using (Aragorn, Faramir, maybe even Samwise - who is less stupid than the film makes out, I'm pretty sure they give a lot of his insights to other characters in the films.)