Login | Register
 
Message Board | Latest Posts | Your Recent Posts | Rules

Thread: The Hobbit.....The Movie

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Hobbit > The Hobbit.....The Movie   << [1] [2] [3] [4]

Purists will hate this.....

If PJ sticks exactly to the book it will be a rather childish musical type scenario.

Having said that I loved the way that the Hobbits sang in their couple of numbers in the LOTR's.  Perhaps this rather pubish drinking song method could be used for the songs.  Also Tra La La Lally sounds silly when read, however if Howard Shore uses a fabulous choir, like he did in the Rivendel introduction scene in TFOTR with grand multi octave corralling it could be fabulous.

Here's a list of the confirmed actors so far:

 

Hobbits

Bilbo Baggins === Martin Freeman

Frodo Baggins === Elijah Wood

Drogo Baggins ==== Ryan Gage

Gollum/Sméagol === Andy Serkis

 

Wizards

Gandalf the Grey === Ian McKellen

Saruman the White === Christopher Lee

Radagast the Brown === Sylvester McCoy

 

Men

Beorn === Mikael Persbrandt

 

Elves

Galadriel === Cate Blanchett

Legolas === Orlando Bloom

Lindir ==== Bret McKenzie

 

Dwarves

Thorin Oakenshield === Richard Armitage

Dwalin === Graham McTavish

Balin === Ken Stott

Kíli === Aidan Turner

Fíli === Rob Kazinsky

Dori === Mark Hadlow

Nori === Jed Brophy

Ori === Adam Brown

Óin === John Callen

Glóin === Peter Hambleton

Bifur === William Kircher

Bofur === James Nesbitt

Bombur === Stephen Hunter

Thrór === Jeffery Thomas

Thráin II === Mike Mizrahi

LOOK AT THIS!!

http://the-hobbit-movie.com/2011/04/14/first-video-from-the-set-of-the-hobbit/

It turns out that PJ is going to be doing a behind-the-scenes blog every step of the way through the Hobbit, and this is the first one. indecision

Hi Fornad, I watched it this morning, very excited!  Great to see some of the otiginal team back together.

The Goblin Tunnels look great!

Wowwowowowowowowowowwwwww, that was cool thanks Fornad. The misus was giving me weird looks as I was jumping up and down on the seat like a kid. Everything looks new but so familiar, so good that the same team are working on these films, I was glad to see John Howe there and I assume Alan Lee is there as well. As soon as I heard the flute play that familiar Hobbiton tune I started bubbling over, cannot wait!!! 

I am so excited about the movie.I just checked out the cast list too.Pretty good it seems.

I'm looking forward to Beorn and the Woodland realm.In so many ways I think this is going to be so much more colorful than LotR.And oh yes the Wargs and I hope they don't keep out Gollum and Bilbo's riddle game.This is going to be awesome if it's split into two.

Oh yes... this is going to be awesome!!....guess it is time to "nail my colours to the mast"...ok, I guess I am a liberal...now, purists, please dont hate me, I love & respect you,,,,I guess i just see these films, not as a literal transliteration of the book, but as another pathway into Middle Earth....come on now purists, i bet you will be in the Cinema come Dec 2012..ha, ha...lol....(my friend walked out of The Two Towers when the elves arrived at Helms Deep....and has refused to see ROTK...sigh, what can you do ?....I still love him though...)

I loved it when John Howe, Alan Lee and all the other artists gave a small hello to the camera and then retreated into the other room, and PJ shook his head and said 'Shy artists!' 

Well there does seem to be some new storylines for Rivendell  and I am expecting a call up for Hugo Weaving to cloak himself with the mantel of Elrond again.

Without Elrond Rivendell is nothing so come on don't keep us in suspense! The journey into Rivendell occurs earlier in the book and we should have heard something by now, 

I guess i just see these films, not as a literal transliteration of the book, but as another pathway into Middle Earth 

 

OK... and fan fiction is arguably another pathway into Middle-earth too, but are you willing to give a gold star to anything that can be characterized as simply another pathway into Middle-earth -- or someone's idea of Middle-earth?

I'm guessing you might answer 'no' 

You are right  to an extent, Galin, i guess it depends how it is done...I found LOTR overall to be respectful to the spirit of the books...ok, I had a problem with some scenes...I respected their reasons for changing things; there were some scenes i think they just messed up.....it is those little iconic moments, isnt it....like Gandalf confronting the Witch King at the gates of Minas Tirith...(why, oh why did they not do that ?)

Anyway, I could go on, but....respect your point of view, Galin

You are right to an extent, Galin, i guess it depends how it is done...I found LOTR overall to be respectful to the spirit of the books...

 

As I guessed! It makes sense though...  it's natural enough for me to believe that great fans of Tolkien do care about faithfulness in adaptations.

So comparing the books to the films, despite that they are different mediums, you found the films overall to be respectful enough despite X, Y, or Z (or I would use 'faithful' enough in a general sense too).

The Jackson unfans wanted what Jackson fans desired, and usually both compare film to book to reach an opinion regarding faithfulness -- well not those who haven't read the books obviously, and perhaps some who truly are willing to accept the films only as films, as wholly separate works of art, but I'm not sure how many Tolkien fans truly take that stance. 

Things you might list that you don't like, or think could have been better if more based on the books, are probably part of an unfan's negative list too -- but according to that someone's particular perceptions and opinions, they are unfortunately probably part of a larger set of 'too many negatives' of various degree...

... too many negatives to reach that tipping point for the 'gold star'... or faithful enough.

The video itself was very interesting, and now I'm looking even more forward to the release of The Hobbit, damn it! Smile Smilie

By the way, in the blog it looks like someone working on more fake Hobbit feet (as were used in the other films).

Why do they go to this trouble, instead of just adding hair to the actual feet of the actors during makeup? to keep 'em warmer maybe?

Hobbits have larger feet in proportion to their bodies than humans do, I must admit that it does look a bit naff, I think it would look far better if they just did as you suggested

Hobbits have larger feet in proportion to their bodies than humans do,  ...

 

But Tolkien drew Bilbo and described Hobbit feet, and I don't see unusually large feet on Bilbo (not yet anyway, as there's a new book coming out with more Hobbit art from JRRT), nor remember any mention of unusually proportioned feet.

Did Jackson actually mention Hobbit feet in any of the DVD extras? I guess if he made the fake feet larger then he probably thinks they are supposed to be, but I was wondering if anyone on the crew actually confirmed this anywhere. 

I don't believe a film can be completely faithful to the content of a book, especially one as voluminous as LOTR, but it should be possible to remain faithful to the spirit of the books. PJ's movies, however, were neither in my book.

Interestingly, past Sunday the first episode of the HBO-series " A game of thrones", based on the book(s) from George RR Martin aired, and apparently according to all fans it was incredibly faithful in both spirit & content. Indeed, the first episode apparently covered the first hundred (!) pages of the 600+ paged book (not to mention, GRRM himself cooperated with the makers of the series).

Seeing that Frank Herbert's sci-fi saga Dune also received a proper treatment in a miniseries, I'm hoping one day LOTR (or the Silmarillion) will receive the same attention...

Well I do like Sean Bean -- I would have liked to see his Aragorn actually (in another adaptation anyway) -- but haven't seen this myself yet. Even Martin has good things to say, I hear.

Unlike the Earthsea attempt and the author's reaction there... I seem to vaguely remember, although I don't think she was involved if memory serves. 

It seems the first book is going to span ten episodes, and just today the second season (ten episodes spanning book two: A clash of Kings) has been confirmed. If it does not get cancelled after two seasons (typical occurence with HBO) this may be the best fantasy series ever to appear on screen.

Speaking of Earthsea, the author indeed loathed the TV series. A pity, since that series certainly also deserves a faithful adaptation. Earthsea is a wholly unique and highly imaginative fantasy setting that borrows absolutely nothing from what Tolkien wrote, until all others out there.

Hello, Vir, my old friend.  I haven't seen you on here in far too long! 

As usual, I agree with you about the adaptations of Tolkien's work to film.  Jackson could certainly have done much better than he did.  I think if the fans badger the studio enough maybe something better will come out this time.  Anybody want to write letters/emails?

Gandalf

About the large feet could this be a close up shot of hobbits feet or do they belong to Trolls?

About the large feet could this be a close up shot of hobbits feet or do they belong to Trolls? 

 

I don't know, but they did use fake Hobbit feet in the former films anyway, and I was wondering if anyone in the crew ever specifically mentioned why.

Rho added (as explanation) that Hobbit feet were unusually large, but I don't think that's true despite some artists depicting Hobbits that way.

It seems easier (perhaps I'm wrong) to just add hair to regular feet, unless keeping the actor's feet warmer inside fake feet was a concern... but I think you wouldn't have to make the fake feet notably larger for that, in any event. 

@ Vir: Since you began to talk about it, let me continue a little bit.

I just watched the first episode of Game of Thrones, and I loved it.

And it indeed covered a good piece of the actual book and had a very good atmosphere and sense of originality.

I'm pretty sure that even George Martin's satisfied to the results of this series, and I'm also sure that this will be the most interesting fantasy series ever (after Hercules: The Legendary Journeys of course ^^).

Shhh...(whispering)....the Hobbit Movie is close now...oh..so close to achieving it's desire......soon it will come among us...we must be ready...oh....mmmm

Fornad will need to update his listed of confirmed actors for The Hobbit movie as Sir Ian Holm was ticked in by none other than Sir Peter.blush

I think the certain hobbits  I am referring to must have had extraordinary feet after all in the LOTR they did everything bare feet in rain, hail, snow and sunshine. 

Sheep get shorn during the Spring for the Summer season and their wool grow back before the onset of Winter.  Perhap hobbit feet adapted to different temperatures at different seasons? 

There is no mention of Shoemakers in Hobbiton?   

Well extraordinary feet is one thing... unusually large feet compared to their bodies is another, concerning which I can find no certain indication of, either in Tolkien's own drawings of Bilbo, or in his descriptions of Hobbits in general.

The Lord of the Rings notes (my emphasis) that: Hobbits seldom wore shoes, since their feet had tough leathery soles and were clad in a thick curling hair, and thus the only craft little practiced among them was shoe-making.

The Harfoots were said to be beardless and bootless, with neat and nimble hands and feet, while the Stoors were broader, heavier in build -- and their feet and hands were larger (I'm pretty sure it's also noted that the Stoors sometimes wore boots for some reason, and in Tolkien's drawings of Bilbo he is sometimes wearing boots). 

So the Stoors have large-er feet and hands, meaning larger than the Harfoots, but their bodies are described as broader and heavier in build as well, so I see no great reason to think that even the Stoors had notably large hands and feet in proportion to their own bodies.

And I could be wrong, but I don't think any film-hobbits wore large rubber hands

OK so I just read the start of the Hobbit and there is indeed no mention of large feet as I remember. Honestly, you guys take this far too seriously. it's just a story, something to distract me momentarily from the real world, you know, working 13 hrs days, raising your kids right and paying the bills......crikey get a grip....

OK so I just read the start of the Hobbit and there is indeed no mention of large feet as I remember. Honestly, you guys take this far too seriously. it's just a story, something to distract me momentarily from the real world, you know, working 13 hrs days, raising your kids right and paying the bills......crikey get a grip.... 

 

Who do you think is taking this far too seriously? It was just a question...

 

... that turned into a polite discussion, which is what these forums are for

No the "feet" was not mean't to be taken seriously and I really appreciated Galin's response to the question though which I found thought provoking.   

Which reminds me of Gollum, his hobbit feet changed over time to what Samwise Gamgee described as having paddle feet like swan's only bigger and Aragorn calling him a footpad.

 

I just checked Wikipedia out of curiosity...

 

Wikipedia (currently) writes: 'Hobbits and derivative Halflings are often depicted with large feet for their size, perhaps to visually emphasize their unusualness. This is especially prominent in the influential illustrations by the Brothers Hildebrandt and the large prosthetic feet used in The Lord of the Rings film Trilogy. Tolkien does not specifically give size as a generic hobbit trait, but does make it the distinctive trait of Proudfoot hobbit family. '''

 

I suppose that the filmmakers, having already included large feet, would do so now out of continuity in any case -- but again, just curious. 

 

Gollum is interesting: originally he wasn't a Hobbit in my opinion. In the first edition, the narrator notes about Gollum: 'I don't know where he came from or who or what he was.'

And John Rateliff (The History of The Hobbit) adds: '... there's no reason not to think he speaks for the author here and take him at his word. (...) but in either case, all the details of his description argue against his being of Hobbit-kin. Unlike Bilbo, the Hobbit, Gollum is 'dark as darkness', with (...) large webbed feet (p. 158) that flap when he walks (unlike the silent Hobbit, cf. p. 161), and 'long eyes', huge and pale, that not only protrude 'like telescopes' but actually project light.'

 

But anyway, of course Tolkien made Gollum into a Hobbit, and so whatever description the revised editions included about Gollum had to be dealt with.

...and so ends the mystery about the large feet. Thank you Galin for the historical background 

The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit are regarded as classics examples of well written literature geared toward children and the young at heart.

When all has being said and done about bringing a written masterpiece to the screen you can guarantee that one can never duplicate an original or produce a faithful adaptation no matter how modern the technique might be.

If anyone thinks this is possible then you would be looking at five films for LOTR and three for The Hobbit.

When all has being said and done about bringing a written masterpiece to the screen you can guarantee that one can never duplicate an original or produce a faithful adaptation no matter how modern the technique might be. If anyone thinks this is possible then you would be looking at five films for LOTR and three for The Hobbit. 

 

One need not equate faithfulness with amount of content however. I'm not a Jacskon fan, but I did not expect X amount of films (of a certain length) so that they might include X amount of book material -- in order for the films to be considered faithful, or faithful enough as I judge things.

Cutting material does not necessarily equate to poor adaptation.

Tolkien himself recognized that arguably 'drastic' cuts would need to be made: with respect to the film treatment he saw (which might have concerned only one film) JRRT advised that if the tale of the Ents and Helm's Deep could not both be properly handled, he recommended cutting Helm's Deep. 

I think Jackson could have cut more than he did. Some might get the impression that amount of content is the issue, for example, when a person notes that the scouring of the Shire 'should' have been included (for reasons ignored here); but when I advise this, I don't mean that it should be added to Jackson's films as they are -- making them even longer!

But rather within a theoretical reconstruction of adapting the whole (hobbito-centric) tale to film.

Well I'm not going to say that it's not a possibility, it could or may well happen in the not too distant future for paragraph 4 of your post to be realised. 

A  film that is totally a hobbit -ecentric tale, I would love to see that happen.  This would mean taking ideas from Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit and hobbits found elsewhere in Tolkien's works.

By Hobbito-centric tale I just mean The Lord of the Rings.

The scouring of the Shire is the true 'ending' of this tale in my opinion, but the point in raising it is just to try to illustrate something about film length.

Anyway, I would not agree one necessarily needs five or more films to be faithful to the source material. 

  << [1] [2] [3] [4]