Given that the Hobbit was much more a children's book than the LOTR, I think they will have a hard time not disappointing fans. They'll either have to adult it up to the trilogy's standards which will lose the innocence of the book or they'll make it in the same tone as the book which might turn a lot of the movies' fans off.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I'm sure Ian McKellen will be happy with this, he's been lobbying for this for years. I had rather hoped that the Hobbit would be a TV/DVD miniseries, in a similar vein of Band of Brothers, in terms of production values and duration. The book itself is episodic, so it would suit that format better if they intended to keep all the original material...give or take.
Mind you, Jackson knows what he's doing and I'm sure he can squeeze it into another 3 hours, with presumably an extended edition to come later.
I'm assuming the second film would cover the white council and the whole necromancer bit, perhaps even some of Aragon's backstory if it's spilling over into the period between the Hobbit & LotR.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Two movies! I am very happy just now.
The only points where they could skimp out on gore would be when Gandalf impales the goblin king on his Glamdring, and later in the battle of five armies. I think we will be ok. The talking wolves standing under the trees the hobbits and Gandalf are in, that will be nice if they go with it.
I just hope they make Gollum as creepy and sociopathic as in the book. Like "You're fun and I like company, but try to run and I will strangle and then eat you". He was good in Bakshi's version, very disturbed, but I don't like Andy Serkis' version at all, way too cute in his donald ducky hoarseness. He's a babyeater ffs.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Serkis' version was cute now? He acted like I imagine a true psychotic would behave, not all sinister and moustache twirling but muttering and very mentally unbalanced.
Mind you, the way Serkis played him was intentionally as a junkie in withdrawal, which during LotR is precisely what he was. I should think he'd play him differently for the "riddles in the dark" as at that point he's master of his own dank little hole with the familiar panicked rage thing only creeping in when he goes back to the island and can't find the ring.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Fifteen birds in five firtrees, their feathers were fanned in a fiery breeze! But, funny little birds, they had no wings! O what shall we do with the funny little things? Roast 'em alive, or stew them in a pot; fry them, boil them and eat them hot?
Burn, burn tree and fern! Shrivel and scorch! A fizzling torch To light the night for our delight, Ya, hey!
Bake and toast 'em, fry and roast 'em! till beards blaze, and eyes glaze; till hair smells and skins crack, fat melts, and bones black in cinders lie beneath the sky! So dwarves shall die, and light the night for our delight, Ya hey! Ya-harri-hey! Ya hoy!
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Gnomes in an uproar?
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Those are supposed to be grim, battle-hardened dwarves under Thorin Oakenshield, that movie made them look like scared little garden gnomes.
That's another thing, I look forward to seeing all the dwarves played by actors, I thought they looked cool in the prologue of LOTR, taking the rings, and accompanying Gimli to Rivendell.
I just hope they won't be too heavily used as comedy relief, except for that first time when they burst forth into Bilbo's mudroom.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Dont forget TALKING SPIDERS! Ohhhh yeah- that was the creepy part of the old cartoon (which I'm still very fond of).
Talking Smaug too- hopefully it'll be cool and not tragicly lame like that Dragonheart movie.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
For the sake of credibility I think for the wolves, spiders and eagles to speak it'll have to be in something other than English (or Westron, whatever it is we hear as English) and perhaps subtitles too. Either that or not have them talk at all and just play it off of the animation instead. That is assuming they want to keep a tone consistent with the existing films.
Smaug on the other hand really needs to speak as it's rather vital to the plot. Though it runs the risk of being Dragonhearty, if they played it as quasi-psychic dialogue, vaguely similar to how they did Sauron, but with more coherance then it could work. Just for fun, I wonder who would be a good as the voice of Smaug? James Earl Jones would be a little too obvious I think, perhaps John Rhys-Davies? He has the basso voice and I doubt he'll be willing to come back to play one of the dwarves. As I understand, he had a bad reaction to the makeup.
Beorn will be a tricky one to cast too, though my initial thought would be a John Goodman type perhaps a more Scandinavian or Germanic type would be better. Then again there's always Michael Clarke Duncan. Weird thought - Billy Connoly? Not very bear like, I'll grant you, but he has the look of a wild man of the wood about him and the idea of a scrawny Glaswegian turning in to a hulking great black bear has a certain irony to it.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Brian Blessed would be great in either role...but as Smaug...yeah.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
CHISWICK, FRESH HOBBITS!
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Hrm. I'm doubtful of this, because of what the initial post said - either adult it up, or keep the kiddiness. I'm not sure which would be worse, honestly, because I loved The Hobbit as a kid, but I really don't enjoy watching kid's movies. :-/ (For example, all those songs...even as a kid they annoyed me greatly. Why, I would think, are the goblins bloody singing? And when did they rehearse all this?)
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
There were songs in LotR too and Jackson & Walsh managed to incorporate some of them without breaking out into musical theatre, so I'm not worried.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
the songs in the animated movies are not in the books. "Where there's a whip there's a way" was not part of the last leg to mount doom. :-)
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
There were songs in the Hobbit though. The goblins, the Elves of Rivendell, the Dwarves, and others all had cutesy little songs.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Well I'm sure they could live without the dwarf dish washing scene altogether, so no danger of song there. Same for all the others really, there's no real need for them, so don't fret.
The only song the film actually needs is "Roads go ever ever on" and perhaps not even that one. Even so, they've already done that one in LotR twice without it sounding cute, so I don't see the problem.
Posted by Mikey T (Member # 144) on :
Well... it should be interesting at least.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Wonder if Ian Wolfe will play Bilbo again?
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Wolfe?
In a way I both hope and don't hope Ian Holm will play Bilbo, because it may demand more of the character physically than he can give, he's been having some real problems with his health the last years. Of course, Bilbo was about 50 in his book, but then again, so was Frodo and the others supposed to be in "Fellowship". :-/
Maybe they can do some keyframe animation shit on Holm when he needs to leap and stab and barrelswim and such.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Eh. Is there an Ian Wolfe that I might have gotten confused with Ian Holm?
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Oh my god, there actually is an Ian Wolfe. I thought you were just soaping there, but according to IMDB he's from Illinois and was born in 1896. He's almost older than Tolkien, the son of a bitch! Never played Bilbo though.
Oh and he's been dead since 1992, so the movie set would smell all funny. What else you got?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Septimus & Mr. Atoz, bitch.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Wrong century. We need new, fresh ideas.
I was kind of hoping they will go with someone who hasn't been seen much before, the way Boyd and Monaghan hadn't, prior to LOTR.
Or perhaps Ray Winstone.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
273 film & television credits. *bam.*
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
It's gonna be hard to top Richard Boone as Smaug. That exchange from the animated film has stuck with me all the way from first viewing. I'd say Liam Neeson if he wasn't doing Aslan. How about Michael Dorn?
Ian Hom has said he wouldn't do Bilbo even if asked. He knows he's too old. They were able to fudge things for the finding of the Ring with makeup and tape, but he knows he wouldn't be able to pull off the entire Hobbit storyline.
I don't know about "Roads Go Ever On" but I'd love the Dwarves' song from after dinner ("Far o'er Misty Mountains old...").
It'd be nice to see Hugo Weaving identifying the moon letters on Thror's map. And maybe have Liv Tyler lurking somewhere in the background.
Likewise maybe seeing Legolas somewhere in the background of Thranduil's halls.
--Jonah
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I hope they don't have Arwen lurking in the background. I *really* hope. That whole romantic sub-plot pissed me off greatly. It wasn't *in* the books, *she* wasn't in the books (at least not with that name, and I'm not even sure with that gender - I think there was an Aruwen who was a throwaway character at some point, but it might have been Elrond's son instead of daughter? I can't remember for sure, anyway), and the whole thing just struck me as being a concession..."Oooh, how are we going to appeal to the mainstream female audience? Oh, let's add in a pointless romantic sub-plot, perfect."
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
She was in the book with exactly the same name and the same history. She did have two brothers though, they were twins. The ones who went with her down to Gondor in the end of the book. Maybe you should re-read it, you'd probably notice a lot of things. I re-read it after a few years and it was like christmas.
Walsh and Jackson even went so far as to show her final destiny in the movie as it played out in the book, when Elrond described it to her. The father-daughter argument never happened in the book but it was the only way to have Arwen's fate remain shown in the movie, it wouldn't be interesting or welcome to see it happen after Frodo had already sailed away. She did linger in Lothlorien after it had faded and her son was born, and she did lay down and die on the mound where they had gotten engaged years earlier.
Except for switching Glorfindel's part out for her in the first movie and making her decision to forsake her immortality for Aragorn a recent one (as opposed to one taken several decades before the events of the movies) they didn't extend her character more than necessary. The romantic subplot was in the book just as well, most noticeable when Eowyn tried to hit on Aragorn and he had to refuse. I don't blame Jackson for picking that up.
If they choose to add Arwen in the background of Rivendell they would be nothing more than accurate, but if they want to score points with the miniscule, fundamentalist tolkienite crowd (who will boycott it anyway under the mistaken impression that people care about what they think) they should have Glorfindel sit in at the table as well, that would be nice.
I, for one, look forward to seeing Orcrist. Ever since I saw what they did with Glamdring I've been hoping for it.
[ December 27, 2007, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: Nim ]
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Hmm. Wow. Is my memory *really* that bad? Now I've got to question *all* the problems I had with the movies doing things differently than the books lol. I really, really don't remember anything about Arwen and Aragorn...I do remember Eowyn hitting on him, but the way I remembered it, he refused because he was way too old for her, though he didn't look it (which I thought they twisted into that scene with the stew in the second movie).
Of course, that brings up the question I've always had about elf-human relations...if the elf is, say for the sake of example, 4,000, and the human is even as old as a hundred, isn't the elf still kind of a pedophile?
And now that we're on the subject - why/how is it that Arwen gave up her immortality? I thought the only time an elf ever became a mortal was when Elrond's brother chose to become human rather than elven in the Silmarillion.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Jackson and Walsh were far more faithful to Tolkien's work than most of the "fans" give them credit. If you watch the documentaries and listen to the commentaries on the extended edition you'll see just how much work went into being true to Tolkiens world and to be honest, IMHO they even improved the story in some places. Some of it was mostly for drama, some for better story telling or harsh practical reasons. I mean would ANYONE sit through the Scorching of the Shire after the film was already effectively over? I mean as it was there were already about fifteen false endings between the ring being destroyed and the credits rolling. Nevertheless less they still kept it in the Mirror of Galadriel scene. Would it make sense to have Tom Bombadil in the middle of a chase sequence? No, it would have killed the movie and dragged out what was already an unusually long film. Even so, they put his words in Treebeards mouth, which is not an unreasonable connection given where Tom lives. Adapting a book, any book, verbatim into a coherent movie is impossible and the best that you can hope for is that the spirit of the book is respected. Frank Herbert knew it, JK Rowling knows it and I think Tolkien even said as much.
Oh and as for wedging Arwen into the first film; if you think she was overused as she was, consider that at one point they had her leading the elves at Helms Deep, even shot some footage of Liv in battle armor, sword a'swinging. Her presence in the Flight to the Ford was necessary not only to add some female appeal into what was for the most part a sausage fest but also to establish her as Aragorn's equal (or even superior) and give him some depth beyond just being a King in exile. Otherwise she'd be a glorified extra that spent most of the films looking all vapid and tragically sad...instead of just doing that in the second and third film. Call it blasphemy but Tolkien was never much for subtle characterisation. Which is fine for the sort of book he wrote, but would simply fall flat in the big screen. Seriously, go back and read some of the dialogue, especially the Aragon & Boromir stuff and try and "hear" it being said by actors. It's surprisingly silly. As I said, a film is a completely different animal to a book.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Tolkien was also not much for writing women, let alone strong women. And I didn't mean feature her in the Rivendell scenes -- just have her in the background somewhere as Elrond welcomes the company to the valley.
And I would so hope they do Orcrist and Glamdring right this time. All the Gondolin blades were supposed to glow in the presence of orcs. Not just Sting.
--Jonah
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Well...but Liv in battle armor...I'd pay to see *that* at any rate...
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
It's interesting with Elrond and Elros. I mean Elrond and his family obviously get a choice to stay Elven or lead the life of mortal Man. I gather that didn't happen for Elros' descendents. Once it was decided he would die a man - it was if the rest of his descendents were locked into that... race.
Elrond's children still had a choice as well.
Aragorn and Arwen are very very distantly related. Much more distant though than Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip are (both 2nd and 3rd Cousins through Queen Victoria).
Also what is very interesting is that Arwen's ancestory is a complete melting pot of some of the most powerful figures in Middle Earth's history and includes Elf, Man AND Maiar. Her Elven ancestory includes descendents from the three houses of the Elves (Noldor, Vanyar and Teleri) as well as the three houses of Man (Hador, Haleth and Beor).
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: Tolkien was also not much for writing women, let alone strong women. And I didn't mean feature her in the Rivendell scenes -- just have her in the background somewhere as Elrond welcomes the company to the valley.
And I would so hope they do Orcrist and Glamdring right this time. All the Gondolin blades were supposed to glow in the presence of orcs. Not just Sting.
--Jonah
It would certainly be nice to have her there, however it means hiring Liv Tyler for what would effectively be a non-speaking cameo, so it's doubtful. However, if the rumours about the second movie being about the white council and Aragorn's earlier life are true then it becomes rather more possible they'll have Liv back for a more significant part and film some footage for Rivendell while they have her.
As far as Orcrist and Glamdring go, I think the reason they didn't make Gandalf's sword glow in LoTR was so as to not confuse people who hadn't read the books (which at the time, included me) but for The Hobbit I don't see why they wouldn't have it glow.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Aragorn is of the Dunedain (scuse, btw, the lack of proper accents - don't have the proper layout on this computer), which were the descendants of the remains of the Numenorians, is that correct? And Gondor is one of the kingdoms founded by the refugees from the fallen Numenor, also correct? So why is it that the Dunedain retained the Numenorian long life, but the Gondorian Men didn't?
The relation between Arwen and Aragorn, then, would be so distant it'd be like how anyone from, say, Germany is related to anyone else from Germany if you go back far enough, right?
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
The Dunedain chieftains were pretty much an unbroken Numenorean line, but many of the other Dunedain, and most of the Gondorians, had been interbreeding with the lesser races of Men for the past Age or more, and so had lost the long life of their forebears.
Additional: A note on consanguinity. You and your first cousin have enough genetic drift that -- provided you have no markers for congenital defects -- you are, genetically-speaking, as perfectly suited as a couple as anyone more distantly related. The consanguinity tabu only came about in medi�val Europe when the nobility realized that the peasants needed to be kept from consolidating family wealth and holdings the way they had been doing, and had the Church make it a no-no to marry your coisin (even though those nobles kept right on doing just that). It's taken a while to shake off the dogma in this country, but where in 47 states it was illegal to marry one's first cousin a decade ago, that number has dropped to 14 states. Which is nice, because I have some pretty hot cousins...
--Jonah
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Does anyone else hear the freakishly skilled plucking of a banjo?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I give you Peregrinus, the slack-jawed-yokel.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
See? This is the kind of ignorant twaddle I'm talking about. Way to think for yourselves, guys.
ANYway... The only decision from Jackson and Walsh for LotR that I disagreed with was the notion that the audience would be confused if both Sting and Glamdring glowed. A single line from Gandalf to Frodo in Moria, maybe, saying that Glamdring was made by the same people for the same reason as Sting, and problem solved. I dunno. Not my job, and I'm not about to tackle rewriting them, when that's a relatively minor gripe.
One other perk of the Hobbit movies is seeing the three trolls before they were turned to stone.
And have we thought of creative casting for the rest of the major roles? Bard, Thorin, Thranduil...?
--Jonah
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:See? This is the kind of ignorant twaddle I'm talking about. Way to think for yourselves, guys. [Razz]
Mate...genetics doesn't even come into it. Having sex with any relative is just creepy and trying to justify it by citing genetic compatibility is just...well...troubled.
I have a step niece who is only 5 years younger than me, is legally an adult (in the UK anyway) and despite being completely unrelated to me by blood it is in no way ok to consider her a viable sexual partner. I don't care if it's legal or not, if it's medically safe or what the various religions have to say about it, she's family and it's just not right. But if you're just talking hypothetically about imaginary elves, then fine, interbreed away.
As far as casing goes, the dwarves will probably be made up of local New Zealand actors like they did with allot of the elves and presumably the non-Gimli Dwarves we caught a glimpse of.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
My point, Rev, is that that "creepiness" is an artifact of the last few hundred years of Western European culture alone, and not even all of that. The upper class knew they made it up to keep the peasants in line, and have happily ignored it. The only people on th eplanet for whom it's creepy are those who come from a tradition of adhering to the precepts of the Catholic Church and its decendents on secular matters (i.e., those decended from the middle and lower classes in the Middle Ages). It's important to examine all of our beliefs from time to time, especially the ones we don't think to question.
But it's okay that you can't think of your step-neice in those terms (that's a closer degree of relationship than cousins, though, and genetically dodgy). I don't like the thought of eating grasshoppers, even though there are lots of cultures where it's perfectly ordinary.
*track change*
Only problem with that is that most of the party were at least mildly significant characters and would warrant casting probably on the level of Merry and Pippin and Samwise. Not necessarily local talent. But also not excluding local talent.
I do think Brian Blessed would be great as Beorn, though.
For the Dwarves, appearance almost doesn't matter, so maybe we should look to the pool of voice actors. John Rhys-Davis sort of straddles that line himself... Have I seen anyone suggest Geoffrey Rush as Thorin? I think he's got a good face for it, as well as his voice.
And for some reason I have no trouble seeing/hearing Patrick Warburton as Bard. o_O *lol*
--Jonah
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I've got to agree with Peregrinus. I mean, how many people in here would be OK with having more than one wife? Why not? Sexist, wrong, can't love them all, etc? But it's perfectly normal in certain cultures. Doesn't make either one right or wrong, just *different.* What you grow up with in your culture shapes your own feelings towards things, and bollocks to logic about it, after that - you just have your inborn emotional reactions and taboos.
(And specifically, cousins aren't nearly as close as nieces in terms of family, at least not in my family, or any of my friends' families. There's a whole different dynamic there. And many people in this country have married their cousins, and as Peregrinus pointed out, the royal and noble families are *still* doing it. Go on, tell an Englishman his queen is a disgusting pervert )
Casting bits - I've forgotten the name of the king of the Mirkwood elves, but I think that's another role to be very careful about casting. Keep the sort of Elven Look the way it was in LotR.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Multiple partners is a whole different kettle of fish, more in line with sexual orientation. That is, it's a spectrum. Some people default monogamous. Others the exact opposite. Many somewhere in between. The cousin thing is purely learned behaviour/attitude. There is an animal instinct to not breed with first- or second-degree relations (siblings, parent/child, uncle/niece, gramdparant/grandchild, etc.) that stems entirely from being programmed for genetic diversity. Some human cultures have overridden this, but it isn't the norm for good reason. Trying to codify it in moral and secular laws in a human quirk, though. I think we're getting closer to the point where such laws and moral restrictions will be obsolete, but we're still a ways off.
*track change*
Thranduil was the Wood-Elf king, Legolas' dad. He was voiced by Otto Preminger in the animated movie, and that's a distinctive voice to try to replace. Ditto Richard Boone for Smaug.
Lessee...
Bilbo Baggins Lobellia Sackville-Baggins Gandalf (Ian McKellan) Thorin (sugg. Geoffrey Rush) Oin Gloin Balin Dwalin Dori Nori Ori Fili Kili Bifur Bofur Bombur actors for the Trolls? Elrond (Hugo Weaving) misc. Rivendell Elves? The Great Goblin? misc. Goblins? Gollum (Andy Serkis) The Lord of the Eagles? Beorn Thranduil misc. Mirkwood Elves Bard (sugg. Patrick Warburton) misc. Laketown Men Smaug Dain Ironfoot
That about cover the potential cast list for The Hobbit portion of the story? I need to go back and refresh my memory of what happened between the end of the Hobbit and the beginning of LotR...
--Jonah
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
I'm waiting for someone to start singing Ray Steven's "I'm My Own Grandpa". Also known as the official State Song of Arkansas. Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Hmm...this animated movie was popular, was it? Everyone keeps talking about the difficulty of 'replacing' the voice actors. I never saw it, having heard from the LotR fans I knew that it was mildly silly and mostly not very good.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Ok, Jonah, first off if you actually read what I said, you'll see I was using a STEP niece as an example. As in NOT the spawn of my brother's loins and not related to me in any biological way. The POINT being and I want to make this very clear lest this discussion slide from creepy to downright disgusting is that genetics doesn't enter into it, seriously thinking a close family member is an acceptable candidate for a sexual relationship is just fucked up. Now, I'm no Catholic, I wasn't even raised Church of England but I still know what immoral is when it hits me in the face.
To my mind, in a modern society, living in a densely populated community, there's no excuse for that kind of mountain boy behaviour. Sure, in certain isolated areas or insular communities or in times gone by when the nearest person who wasn't a direct relation was a three day horse ride away, the sister who can't run quite as fast is the only show in town and that is the reality of those situations and in such cases interbreeding is unavoidable or even necessary. The thing is I don't believe either of us or anyone hear live in that kind of world, so it remains categorically wrong. End of.
quote:Hmm...this animated movie was popular, was it? Everyone keeps talking about the difficulty of 'replacing' the voice actors. I never saw it, having heard from the LotR fans I knew that it was mildly silly and mostly not very good.
I tend to agree. I've seen both the animated Hobbit cartoon and the rotascoped LotR flicks and frankly they're both crap. I don't see how anyone could hold either of them dear and complain that Jackson's film strayed too far from the books. I mean really! That film had Sam characterised as a bumbling idiot, Treebeard was a walking potato and Saurman looked and sounded like an Adam West Batman villan. That plus the small detail that the whole thing ended at Helms deep.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Daniel Butler: Hmm...this animated movie was popular, was it? Everyone keeps talking about the difficulty of 'replacing' the voice actors. I never saw it, having heard from the LotR fans I knew that it was mildly silly and mostly not very good.
Don't worry - I never saw it either. To me it's like saying that the Lord of the Rings cartoon was a definitve 'version' that would be very hard to replace.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"That plus the small detail that the whole thing ended at Helms deep."
They were going to make the other half, but the first one flopped, so there was no money. Eventually, the people who made The Hobbit sort of finished it up by making The Return of the King (in the style of The Hobbit).
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Rev, I know what you typed. I was just saying, biological or step, the line between second and third degrees of relatedness has been the cutoff more often than between third and fourth. And your attitude just drives home how ingrained it is in Western European culture and its descendents.
*ahem*
The Bakshi "animated" LotR just freaked me the hell out. I've tried to watch it a couple different times, and it just leaves me cold each time. That is not what I'm being nostalgic over.
The Rankin/Bass animated Hobbit and Return of the King offerings were higher quality, allowing for their distinctive art style. The songs were hit-or-miss (I'm not a huge fan of "The Greatest Adventure" or "The Road Goes Ever On", but I love most of the rest), but the score I love.
But the aspect that resonates the most with me even now were the vocal performances. They had some pretty darn good actors, with pretty darn distinctive voices. And that's what I'm hoping they try to capture -- not the exact performances, but the sense of the characters. Thorin, Smaug... Andy Serkis captured a lot of the same essence of Gollum from these films. *shrug*
I recommend renting those two just to see what I'm talking about. They're rather childish in their delivery, but you should see what I mean.
--Jonah
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I don't think I've ever seen them in Australia - only the Bakshi movie. It's quite 'dark' isn't it?
I had HEARD that some other studio had 'finished off' RotK but... never seen it.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist II: I'm waiting for someone to start singing Ray Steven's "I'm My Own Grandpa". Also known as the official State Song of Arkansas.
Read "All You Zombies".
--Jonah
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: I don't think I've ever seen them in Australia - only the Bakshi movie. It's quite 'dark' isn't it?
I had HEARD that some other studio had 'finished off' RotK but... never seen it.
The Bakshi movie is very muddy, and it's hard to tell what's going on a lot of the time.
As for the R/B movies... Here is the first chunck of The Hobbit. Watch as much as you want of that and/or Return of the King, which is linked in the side index. For this first bit, you'll probably have to turn up the volume a bit before you clicky. And whatever else, I do recommend you watch the conversation between Bilbo and Smaug, in part 6.
--Jonah
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
That is your yardstick for quality? Really? I shouldn't worry about Jackson miscasting; his track record so far has been spot on. As for Serkis, I highly doubt he took anything from that film into his performance. Any similarity you might read into it is just what comes right off the page. I mean, come on, Gollum is one of the most well realised characters in the whole LotR saga, indeed one of the few to actually have some depth and range to their character, so of course the various performances are going to have similarities.
As for Smaug, I didn't see anything special in that voice work, at least not to the point of being worthy of emulation. To my mind Smaug should sound intellegent and not have so much bluster about him. Though thinking about it Blessed could probably pull it off. If he weren't already playing Saruman, Lee might be a good choice too. Slightly off beat, but maybe John Hurt would be a good choice, that is if they don't have him doing Radagast (I assume he was at the white council?)
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Daniel Butler: (And specifically, cousins aren't nearly as close as nieces in terms of family, at least not in my family, or any of my friends' families. There's a whole different dynamic there. And many people in this country have married their cousins, and as Peregrinus pointed out, the royal and noble families are *still* doing it. Go on, tell an Englishman his queen is a disgusting pervert
Surely Royal Families aren't a good example if you want to show how marrying your cousins produces well rounded normal human beings.
The problem isn't so much you marrying your cousin. That, as you say, would probably turn out fine. That's what the reports show. However, the reports are also only valid for first-time cousin relationship. What if your children marry their cousins? And then those children marry theirs? You're going to get abnormalities leaping up all over the place.
God forbid I quote Wikipedia, but:
"A BBC Report, however, found that Pakistanis in Britain, 55% of whom marry a first cousin, are 13 times more likely than the general population to produce children with genetic disorders, and that one in ten children of cousin marriages either dies in infancy or develops a serious disability. Thus Pakistani-Britons, who account for some 3% of all births in the UK, produce "just under a third" of all British children with genetic illnesses."
One of the main points of procreation is to spread genes around, not pass themm back and forth between Cousin Bob and Cousin Billy. So yeah, marry your cousin all you want. Just don't be surprised if your great-great grandson falls over and dies because his blood doesn't clot properly.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Just don't be surprised if your great-great grandson falls over and dies because his blood doesn't clot properly."
Although, to be fair, Queen Victoria seems to have spontaneously developed her hemophilia gene, not inherited it. Or, at best, her father wasn't really her father, in which case the inbreeding probably still wasn't the problem.
Or she got bitten by a werewolf. You decide.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Also, the Ptolemy dynasty of Egypt seemed to be going along fine until the Romans steamrolled over them. Eight generations of brothers marrying sisters -- except one where an uncle married his niece -- and the end result was Cleopatra. *heh*
But if we can get back to the Hobbit... Sorry, Rev. Late '70s animation wasn't the best the world has ever produced, but the Hobbit was pretty good for its time, and I think the score, some of the songs, and several of the voice performances still stand up. I didn't expect everyone to agree. Just wanted those who hadn't seen it to see it and make their own decisions.
--Jonah
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Oh I know the animation is what it is, nothing wrong from that point of view. actually some of the backgrounds are rather good. What I was referring to was the voice acting and characterisation. It's not a casting problem because I know Roddy McDowell can do MUCH better than that. Bottom line it's a kiddies film and treats itself as such so it's all in very broad strokes. It's not a matter of holding up, it was just as hokey back in the 70's. Don't get me started on the score or the songs though.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Dude... Just ignore John Huston's narration at the beginning and just listen to the music behind it. That has given me chills for thirty years.
--Jonah
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Well I wasn't claiming it makes genetic sense over the long run, just that it isn't 'wrong' or 'perverted' to be attracted to or marry a cousin. Finis.
How come Sauron didn't notice every time Bilbo used the ring throughout The Hobbit?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Wait, wait, wait - songs. . ?!
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Did you not read the books, or are you saying you don't remember songs from the cartoon?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: Dude... Just ignore John Huston's narration at the beginning and just listen to the music behind it. That has given me chills for thirty years.
--Jonah
Mate...How can I listen to the music with all that late 70's American country folkish John Denver wannabe crap going on?
quote:How come Sauron didn't notice every time Bilbo used the ring throughout The Hobbit?
As I recall it's because it wasn't full "awake" at the time. Remember that Sauron's essence is tided to the ring and visa versa and at the time he was skulking down in Dol Guldur, not even at half strength. At least that's the explanation I recall. Supposedly it's also the reason why Bilbo just went invisible and not into that freaky wrath dimension, according to the film makers. Having said all the the supposed reason why it abandoned Gollum before Bilbo showed up was because it had heard Saurons call, so presumably it still had some mojo, just not enough to call back.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: Mate...How can I listen to the music with all that late 70's American country folkish John Denver wannabe crap going on?
*lol* Yeah, those are the songs I don't like. Listen to the first thirty or forty seconds, ignoring Gandalf's narration... or not. That's the music I'm talking about. It comes and goes throughout. Some of the music cues are meh, some are good.
And that's teh explanation I've always seen for the ring/Sauron. He was coming back to strength and calling the ring, but Dol Goldur was in no wise the power battery the Barad-dur was.
--Jonah
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Daniel Butler said:
quote:I thought the only time an elf ever became a mortal was when Elrond's brother chose to become human rather than elven in the Silmarillion.
Arwen did do so, it's one of the greatest tragedies of the elven people and is also intimately connected with her progenitor from Beleriand in the first age.
Except for Arwen and, before her, Elrond's brother Elros Tar-Minyatur, the first High King of N�menor, the only elf to have chosen mortality was L�thien Tin�viel. The story of Beren and L�thien is one of my favorites from the Silmarillion for many reasons, but one big reason is that it connects with the future War of the Ring in different ways, not the least of which is L�thien, the most magnificient elven princess of all time, whose beauty was passed on to Arwen. Aragorn sings of them in the extended FoTR edition, on the way to Rivendell.
All this typing has made me want to re-read the Sil again, even though chapters like this one sting me ol' heart.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nim: Daniel Butler said: I thought the only time an elf ever became a mortal was when Elrond's brother chose to become human rather than elven in the Silmarillion. Arwen did do so, it's one of the greatest tragedies of the elven people and is also intimately connected with her progenitor from Beleriand in the first age.
Except for Arwen and, before her, Elrond's brother Elros Tar-Minyatur, the first High King of N�menor, the only elf to have chosen mortality was L�thien Tin�viel. The story of Beren and L�thien is one of my favorites from the Silmarillion for many reasons, but one big reason is that it connects with the future War of the Ring in different ways, not the least of which is L�thien, the most magnificient elven princess of all time, whose beauty was passed on to Arwen. Aragorn sings of them in the extended FoTR edition, on the way to Rivendell.
Grr, all this typing has made me want to re-read the Sil again, even though chapters like this one and Turin's hurt to read.
It's interesting I'm listening at this very moment to the FotR - complete recordins. This is on the first disc right at the end (Aragorn singing the Song of L�thien).
I reckon that the Narn � Hin H�rin (The Children of H�rin) would make a wonderful movie. So tragic!
[ January 08, 2008, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: AndrewR ]
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I've seen Hurin around for a while now, is it any good? I gather it's an expansion of certain sections of the Silmarillion, but I was never able to get into that book. Lord of the Rings was hard enough for me to read, but that thing gave me a migraine just two pages in...OK, slight exaggeration, but it was still pretty hard going!
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Yeah, it's hard going, but the Tale of the Children of Hurin (Pretty much Turin's story) is one of my favourite parts of the Silmarillion.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
The Silmarillion edition that I have (illustrated by Ted Nasmith) is 304 pages long all in all, so I can usually finish it in one weekend. The tale of Hurin I like because it involves other characters established before the events of the story (Glaurung, Morgoth) and is weaved into a few of the humongous battles against Morgoth on the plains outside Angband.
Hm, Lucas said he would never do a Star Wars production not involving the Skywalkers, and yet now they are preparing to do a TV series focusing on everything BUT the Skywalkers, during the dark times. So maybe it isn't totally impossible to see some parts of the ancient times of Beleriand on the screen, if they are doing "The Hobbit" now, after all.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:The tale of Hurin I like because it involves other characters established before the events of the story (Glaurung, Morgoth) and is weaved into a few of the humongous battles against Morgoth on the plains outside Angband.
Now see that's my problem right there. I'm a very visual thinker, part of being artistic and all these weird made up names make it very difficult for me to actually picture what's going on. With LotR it wasn't so bad as most of the hokie pokie first & second age stuff was told more or less in passing and related to something in the narrative - the origin of the Ring and Gollum, snippits here and there about Elrond's childhood memories or the musings of Treebeard - all reasonable easy to digest. The only bit where you have to swallow all the exposition at once is the Council of Elrond but even that's more or less linear and builds on what you already know. The Silmarillion on the other had reads like the book of Genesis, with begotting and giants and waking up piles of ash and calling them elidarundiwotzit in the land of brushynekkiway that walked with a bit of a limp in the spring.
I can read the words, I can see where a sentence begins and that a full stop means it's finished, but somewhere in between I get lost and have the sudden urge to be afraid of giant spiders. Even when I really try I usually spend half the time flicking back and forth to the appendices, trying to keep track of what's what and who's where and how Maiar are old men with huge beards AND ancient god like beings who smoke pot.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
I think you misinterpreted my quote there. I meant that Glaurung and Morgoth had been introduced just a few chapters before the tale of H�rin's bane. Neither Glaurung nor Melkor were introduced like you describe, with some boring list of names or prosaically, they had their own stories.
As for you calling yourself a bonafide artistic, I didn't know that was a handicap for reading books with the informations in them. When I was 19, I sketched a guy in Laos with a graphite no.8 at a thousand yards in high wind. Maybe eight or even ten guys in the world could have made that sketch. But when I stumble upon lore related to a book I read earlier, I feel like it fleshes out the scraps of info I had gotten before, and then I am happy.
For instance, had I read "The Hobbit" after LOTR, I would've ate up all the stuff referring to the Necromancer and Gollum's relationship with the ring like it was ice cream.
And also, like Peregrinus was privy too, the swords of Gandalf and Bilbo/Frodo coming from the sacking of Gondolin? Shit like that, I love it.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Reverend : You don't want to read The Children of Húrin. I had the same reaction you did to The Silmarillion (definitely nothing to do with artistry, though), and I don't think I even got halfway through Húrin before it was just too much.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Hmm. I reckon that the Tale of the Children of Hurin you don't even need the rest of the Silmarillion to enjoy.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nim: I think you misinterpreted my quote there. I meant that Glaurung and Morgoth had been introduced just a few chapters before the tale of H�rin's bane. Neither Glaurung nor Melkor were introduced like you describe, with some boring list of names or prosaically, they had their own stories.
As for you calling yourself a bonafide artistic, I didn't know that was a handicap for reading books with the informations in them. When I was 19, I sketched a guy in Laos with a graphite no.8 at a thousand yards in high wind. Maybe eight or even ten guys in the world could have made that sketch. But when I stumble upon lore related to a book I read earlier, I feel like it fleshes out the scraps of info I had gotten before, and then I am happy.
For instance, had I read "The Hobbit" after LOTR, I would've ate up all the stuff referring to the Necromancer and Gollum's relationship with the ring like it was ice cream.
And also, like Peregrinus was privy too, the swords of Gandalf and Bilbo/Frodo coming from the sacking of Gondolin? Shit like that, I love it.
Well I wasn't claiming Da Vinci like superpowers, just that if I can't picture what's going on, I get lost and it's all just a jumble of words. Perhaps it's more a form of dyslexia, who knows! All I know is all those names are bloody hard to keep straight, to the point where I have trouble associating them with anything visual.
Don't get me wrong, trivia and backstory is great, it's just the way it's presented is more like a writers guide to the source material. Very stuffy, like (surprise surprise) a scholar's recording of translated myths & legends, distilled down to the pure facts without any of the storytelling flare that made them compelling.
Now if they start writing books based on that material, then I'm all for it.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
I didn't mean to sound sarcastic, just wanted to get Laos in there. :-)
quote:distilled down to the pure facts without any of the storytelling flare that made them compelling.
I guess that was Chris Tolkien's way of trying not to color his father's work with his own tone, just putting in what he found in the notes. I like that, and from what I've heard he isn't too good of an author himself, so it was probably for the best.
There's one passage that sticks with me, a human that betrays his people by giving information to Morgoth in exchange for his lost wife, and Morgoth laughing and repaying him by "killing him in a most cruel way". I think it's a good example that there's a point to the absence of detail in the Silmarillion. You notice that the Valar or Eru was almost nonexistant in LOTR, except for when Gandalf is returned to the world or when Saruman dies and his spirit is scattered by a wind from the West. If the Valar and Morgoth where to be described and written in a typical fantasy-book perspective, like "Mandos adjusted his ethereal robe and scratched his star-beard while thinking about what to do with F�anor, having come just yesterday into his halls of the dead. 'Hmmm!' he exclaimed, changing his constitution to float through the wall and talk to the elves in the other room." would ruin the detached way they are described in the Sil as it is.
John Rhys-Davies discussed in the extra material for FOTR that you could mention in the book how Galadriel gives Gimli three strands of her hair as a gift, but you couldn't show it on-screen because it would look silly having him stand there with three flailing hairs in his glove and smiling.
To "reimagine" the Silmarillion and embellish it by modern authors, the way Brian Herbert and Kevin Anderson have molested the corpse of Dune, would seem to me like repainting the Mona Lisa to get the colors out the way they might've looked like when they were one week old, instead of just accepting what's there.
I didn't mean to go on so long and off-topic, it's just so seldom it comes up here and it's fun.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Nim: I believe it was Arwen I was asking about - how could she give up immortality, because I'd thought that was a privilege only offered to her father and uncle.
I can't relate to not keeping the names straight. Maybe it's my fairly significant talent for linguistics (not *languages* specifically, now, but linguistics). One of the reasons I like Lord of the Rings so much is because of the depth of the languages Tolkien created, even with names to go with them, appropriate to the language spoken by the named.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Elrond's whole family was granted the choice of selecting immortality or not, because of the actions and victories of his parents. Every offspring born to an immortal in that family would get the same choice (like Arwen and her brothers, although they remained immortal and left the world for Valinor after the War of the Ring), but if you chose mortality your offspring would not get the choice, so the line of Elros merged with the surviving higher families of humans fleeing the destruction of their old world and became the Numenoreans, the best of both worlds, having some of both human, elven and maiar blood.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Interesting. I wonder how that worked...did you mail in your choice to 1 Valinor Place or what? Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
I think it worked the same way the Ring's shapeshifting feature and Star Trek's teleport compensators work; why very well, thank you. :.)
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Gotta love those Pro-Choice Half-Elven. Did anyone catch the documentary on the Hobbit that was found in (I believe) Indonesia? From the little I saw (no pun intended) they found a full female skeleton about 3'-6" tall of a female but most closely related to Homo Sapiens rather than the more distant variants. I believe they also said they found others that meant this wasn't a one-off. Now if they find mounds with round doors....
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I've heard that skeleton has since been declared a Homo sapiens with a genetic or nutritional defect, i.e., some kind of dwarf or midget.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
If it's the same one's I read about then according to the locals there was a whole tribe of them just a few hundred years back. Apparently they were wiped out after being caught stealing babies.
It's not surprising to find there are different "breeds" of humans, given how much migrating we've done over the last few million years. look into any culture and you'll find references to little people and whatnot. I think even Genesis has a line about giants existing at some point, Exodus too if I'm not mistakes. Of course terms like "Giant" and "Little" are a matter of perspective. For all we know the legends about giant men come from very short people and visa versa.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
Even Goliath was only about 6'6" in reality, according to most original sources.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Part of that is PR. "Why is that shrimpy guy King again?" "Because he slew a giant!" "What, that friendly, slightly simple guy you used to sell carpets? Wasn't he more like four and a half Cubits?" "A MURDEROUS GIANT I TELL YOU!!!"
Of course if the average height at that time and in that place was only around 4' then 6'6" would be close enough to giant as to make no difference.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, just because the Bible mentions giants is no reason to believe there were really tall people. I mean, not all myths and stories are based on truth. Maybe people just like the idea of giants and dwarves, creatures similar to humans but different in size, the same way they like humanoid 'aliens' in sci-fi today.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
You'd be surprised how accurate the old testament can be for recording the formerly oral traditions of the ancient Hebrews and that's coming from an agnostic. Point is there's plenty of giant related stories in cultures all around the world, most of which probably have some vague basis in fact. Also keep in mind that our perception of a "Giant" is coloured by the fe-fi-fo-fum variety, when really it just means really tall bloke. Tall tales and all that.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Well...I mean, of course it's good for recording the previously oral tradition of the ancient Hebrews...the Hebrews *wrote* it. But that doesn't mean their formerly oral traditions were necessarily based on fact, i.e., that their formerly oral legends about the Canaanites were based on an actual race of giants.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: Of course if the average height at that time and in that place was only around 4' then 6'6" would be close enough to giant as to make no difference.
I think most historical evidence says that the average height of the human race hasn't actually changed that much over the centuries. Over the last 1,000 years, it's only fluctuated by a few inches. Certainly not a couple of feet.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
True, but you still get isolated pockets of extremes. Ever met someone from the Philippines or notice that most basketball players are of African decent? Averages can only tell you so much. All it takes is a tribe of short people to meet a tribe of tall people and you got yourself tales of giants and little people...just from opposite perspectives.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Stories of giants in the Earth might have originated with the bones of mammoths and such dug up by the Greeks. Certainly, a mammoth skull looks like that of a cyclops.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I'm sure allot of things like that can contribute to all sorts of myths, or build on existing tales of strange peoples and creatures. Did the dragon myth originate from dinosaur bones or second or third hand accounts of alligators, crocodiles or komodo dragons? Did the idea of a unicorn come from the washed up remains of Narwhals, or just pure fantasy? There's a million examples like these. How they started is anyone's guess. As for the Cyclops, I'm inclined to believe that if there's any true basis for that one, he was just a man with a missing eye. The Greeks love to embellish their tales, I mean come on, the legends of the Olympian gods reads like some bad soap opera.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I thought the Greek myth of Cyclops was from elephant skulls, since they didn't know elephants. Myths of mammoths have been around since before we found any fossils, haven't they? I mean, we did used to hunt them. But then the Lanteans came back through the Stargate and taught us how to make French toast instead. (Also, I had read that unicorns were thought up based on second-hand accounts of rhinoceroses(sp?), the best description of which that they could come up with was something like "from the distance, it looks like a horse, but with a horn on its head." Also, perhaps seeing gazelles or antelope from the side.)
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Exactly my point. There's dozens of theories where each of these things originated, truth is none of them can be verified and quite likely non of them are exactly right. Myth take centuries to really sink in to a culture and all sorts of factors have an influence along the way and quite often bears little relation to the initial inspiration.
So what WE think of as a giant, unicorn or dragon today is just a diluted and misinterpreted perception of something that was probably not even seen by those who depicted them in stories and whatnot. Think of it a Chinese whispers but instead of words, it's ideas and instead of people, it's different cultures.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
...In other news; the next up to sue New Line over the LOTR profits - the Tolkien estate. link
I wonder if New line even has an accounting department. Are they just stuffing their 6 billon into mattresses or secretly funding the CEO's gambling addiction? Seriously, what are they playing at?
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Agreement over wide-eyed incredulity of failure to pay. Anger at New Line and patriotic-type loyalty to Tolkien Trust.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Let's just hope they sort this out before it derails the new movies. Oh, for those who don't know Guillermo del Toro is now numero uno on the list of possible directors. link ...which is nice.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
wow. i looked at the Director's pic and the only thing that pops up is 'Hi. I just fucked your Sister. With your father's dead dick'
Fucking ass Jack Nichelson 'The Shining' creepy. He's Euro i assume?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Yes, like me and several other members of this board he's "Euro". Though to be specific he's Spanish.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Which further undermines his character right?
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
I think I'd enjoy what he could bring to the table regarding Middle Earth, if Laberinto del Fauno and Hellboy is any indication.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Exactly. It's not just a talent for doing films with freaky creatures he's actually very good at characterisation, so no danger of this turning into a mindless fantasy film. Also, he seams to be all for bringing back the original cast. Ian McKellen, Christopher Lee, Viggo Mortensen, Orlando Bloom and Cate Blanchett have all apparantly expressed an interest in coming back and given they're apparantly incorporating the White Council/Dol Guldor story there's certainly potential for all their characters to come back. I think Elijah Wood has also said he'd like to come back, though I doubt they'd cast him as Bilbo and Frodo would be too young to appear even in the second film. Almost no chance of getting John Rhys-Davies back as a Dwarf, the poor bloke had a very nasty reaction to the prosthetics the last time round.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
A lesser man would've quit the production, I think. But he was dedicated. To LotR or to showbiz, I'm not sure which... Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Probably more to the cast and crew. Most actors bleat on about how they've all become a family while filming whatever movie they happen to be promoting at the time. In the case of the LotR, I think it's one of the rare cases where it's actually true.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Right, except for Davies, though, who was locked away in hiding because of his face.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
I liked that joke he put on Jackson with the finger prosthesis, was good.
Bonding! Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Interesting tidbit in a Con report over at TrekMovie.com - Patrick Stewart claims he was offered the part of Gandalf by Peter Jackson when casting LotR, but turned it down in favour of another part which he didn't get. He wouldn't say which part, oddly. Was it because a) now, in hindsight, such a part would be patently ridiculous for him - Aragorn, or Legolas, or someone else so obviously wrong for a sixtysomething Yorkshireman to play? Or, b) had a comparatively low amount of screen-time - Bilbo, or Gimli? Or, c) Didn't get featured at all - Glorfindel or Tom Bombadil!
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Or Saruman?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I think Glorfindel and Bombadil went out at the pre-miramax scripting stage, so it's not likely to be either of them. I was about to suggest Th�oden or Denethor but then I think he would have been able to play either of those. Perhaps he refers to Elrond? He is after all a little short for an elf. Or Boromir perhaps?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Oh, yeah, chances are it was likely Saruman, Elrond, Theoden, or Denethor. It just seems odd given that, according to the con report, he absolutely would not be drawn on who he wanted to play.
I always saw him as Theoden myself (once it became clear that both Gandalf and Saruman were cast, although my memory is imperfect and I can't remember now in what order McKellen, Lee and Hill were announced in their roles, but probably in the order I just listed them). I can't see him going for Elrond, his part was massively increased but was still largely window-dressing. Which leaves Denethor, whose role was probably slightly reduced.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I could see him playing Denethor, though I thought the actor they chose was very good.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Ghan-Buri-Ghan.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Stewart not want play Ghan-Buri-Ghan. Make Ghan-Buri-Ghan great sadness. Ghan-Buri-Ghan deserve billing. Now tribe look down on Ghan-Guri-Ghan, spit when pass on trail home. Payment on oscar tux not re-foon-dable. Ghan-Buri-Ghan must work many moons now peel taters.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
PO-TA-TOES.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Spuds.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
...And in vaguely related news, Sean Astin plays a slightly naive traveller with an innocent disposition, while Christopher Lee plays a tall looming supernatural being. No it's not the Hobbit, but have a look here.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
A few months later and a random bit of news... About three weeks back Jackson did a live webchat regarding the two Hobbit films (transcript here), I've just recently got to reading the whole thing and this comment caught my attention.
quote:KenshinIV What are the chances Ron Perlman will be voicing Smog? Guillermo del Toro At this time the voice of Smaug is down to a very few choices in my head and I have a completely specific one, Ron has a good chance but I have other plans for RP... we will see...
Cryptic, but after reading this as well...
quote:WetaHost Considering that you're stretching The Hobbit into 2 movies can we assume that Beorn will be featured and will not be given the Tom Bombadil treatment? Guillermo del Toro I may be in the minority, but I absolutely LOVE Beorn and I intend to feature him in the films. BTW I also like TB quite a bit…
...I couldn't help wondering if Del Toro is thinking of Ron Perlman as Beorn? In terms of physicality alone I think he'd be an excellent choice. Oh and is it possible he's thinking of putting TB in there somewhere too? Perhaps in film 2? Or maybe I'm reading too much into all this. Actually it just occured to me that Perlman might make a good candidate for Thorin, that is assumung they're using the same scaling trick that they used in the original films. In fact this time around it's even more important for all the Dwarves to be played by tall actors & the hobbits by short people, since they have the most interaction this time around.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Rather have a real englishman, preferably scottish, to be thorin. Someone with gravitas, not rhys-davies... I like him but gimli was just a joke.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
And the not so minor point that he won't do it.
I think Perlman has plenty of gravitas. Speaking as an Englishman myself, I don't believe an actor has to speak in received pronunciation to be a credible authority figure. Regardless, good actors are perfectly capable of putting on accents as evidenced by Rhys-Davies himself. He was born in the same city as me and I'll be buggered if that's a Wiltshire accent he uses in interviews. Same goes for the likes Patrick Stewart and Ian Mckellen. I'm sure any half decent American actor can alter their accent just as well.
As for other casting possibilities for the Dwarves, I can easily see the likes of Brendan Gleeson, Brian Cox, James Cosmo and other cast members of Braveheart being up for some of the various other dwarf parts. Off the top of my head others who might fit the bill could be the likes of Mike McShane, John Goodman, John Ratzenberger, hell, even Meat Loaf might be good for it.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Speaking of accents, I'm not sure what accent the Elves used in LotR...I mean if that's a real accent or just a "hey this sounds Elfy" accent somebody came up with...but I thought Live Tyler did a pretty good job of sounding elvish, anyway.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I'm probably the only man on earth that finds her creepy and unattractive. Seriously, give it ten years and she;ll be her dad in drag....((shudder))
I could see Tom Jane as Bard.
Speaking of the Hobbitt, I just last week bought the old Bass and Rankin animated Hobbit. Bilbo looks really...froggy. The Dwarves look completely unthreatening and Smaug looks like a giant cat with wings. Still, it holds a dear place in my heart (right next to all that shrapnel).
Alll I can say is, those spiders better fucking talk! I was pretty disapointed in Shelob's apparant lack speaking ability. And yes, I want singing goblins: singing pyromaniac goblins were a big influence on my impressionable young mind.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: I always saw him as Theoden myself (once it became clear that both Gandalf and Saruman were cast,
Maybe he wanted to play Radagast? Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Jason:
quote:I was pretty disapointed in Shelob's apparant lack speaking ability.
That's a waste of energy then because Shelob never spoke a word in the book, we just got some of her thoughts, like "she hated the light in front of her" or "she'd never remembered feeling a pain like this sword in her belly".
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Daniel Butler: Speaking of accents, I'm not sure what accent the Elves used in LotR...I mean if that's a real accent or just a "hey this sounds Elfy" accent somebody came up with...but I thought Live Tyler did a pretty good job of sounding elvish, anyway.
Difficult to tell. Mostly I'd say it's received pronunciation with a very slight Welsh lilt. It differs though, from actor to actor.
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: I'm probably the only man on earth that finds her creepy and unattractive. Seriously, give it ten years and she;ll be her dad in drag....((shudder))
I could see Tom Jane as Bard.
Speaking of the Hobbitt, I just last week bought the old Bass and Rankin animated Hobbit. Bilbo looks really...froggy. The Dwarves look completely unthreatening and Smaug looks like a giant cat with wings. Still, it holds a dear place in my heart (right next to all that shrapnel).
Alll I can say is, those spiders better fucking talk! I was pretty disapointed in Shelob's apparant lack speaking ability. And yes, I want singing goblins: singing pyromaniac goblins were a big influence on my impressionable young mind.
I think I can see both sides of the "Liv argument", though I dare say she'll age much better than most of her contemporaries and with a lot less surgical intervention.
As for casting Bard; that's probably the easiest part to cast as the business is full of actors who specialise in the whole rugged handsomeness and strength thing. Tom Jane seams a little small though, isn't the character supposed o be really tall, or am I only remembering Bilbo's perspective? I'd cast Adam Baldwin and change to the character's full name to "Hero of Laketown, the man they call Bard".
As for the whole talking animals bit, it's probably the only thing that worries me about this film, after they went to such pains to make the world seam "real" in the LoTR. I can see a couple ways of approaching it but my favourite so far is they way it was done in "Princess Mononoke" with the normal animal sounds coming out of their mouths overlaid with a distorted (slightly inhuman sounding) human voice. The explanation being that the "pure" breeds of middle Earth and those that are incarnations of powerful spirits have a supernatural power of speech where say, the wargs from the film were more of a mongrel breed and more bestial than the ones from the Hobbit. If memory serves there is a tradition in Tolkines works they there is a "divine" breed for all the animals in middle Earth, like for instance Shadowfax and the Giant Eagles, most of whom could at least understand elvish. In the case of the Spiders, if I remember my Tolkien lore they're second generation descendents of a powerful spider shaped spirit from the First age, so they're in a similar category.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Yesh, Ungoliant was in level with the other ainur in power, according to sources, and took a spider shape when entering into arda. Shelob is a descendant and the mirkwood critters are far descended from her.
I hope Beorn will look enough of a fluffy grizzly (or one of those Warcraft druid-bears) that he doesn't look too much like Iorek Byrnison.
I thought they got it right with Treebeard's voice-layer technique. Most people I've watched LOTR with have never instinctively recognized Rhys-Davies in there.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I never thought Liv was attractive until I saw her as Arwen. Just about any woman is attractive as an elf...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)