Thread: IS BEORN INCLUDED IN MOVIE?WHO SHOULD PLAY HIM
<<  
Regards Odo Banks
And it's rather specious for you to charge me with inconsistency Odo . I was simply relating the Canonical issues over which one's in the BOOKS and writings of Tolkien should take precedence over the other . Nowhere did I imply that the films should (or should not) do the same .
[size=150:2hvys4as][b:2hvys4as]You Bastard! [/b:2hvys4as][/size:2hvys4as]
How could you say that!?!?
And Tom and the Barrow-wights? THey MADE that part of the book... Oh God... this is going to be harder than I thought... poor deluded Beard... You've got me weeping now! (Are you as far gone as Gollum was? I just can't be sure anymore!)
It's worse than I thought, Mr Tyrant! Scouring was among my FAVORITE parts. The tying up of ends in an exciting classic fashion. Does this mean GB and I are irreparably estranged now? )
Why only quote the part where I disagree with you? Are just so blinded with rage that you can't see first part:[b:2liggk9s] "I actually would have appreciated Bombadil and the Barrow Wights inclusion.[/b:2liggk9s] But I am only mildly disappointed they didn't make the cut as they would have disrupted the flow of the film (theatre version).[b:2liggk9s] I think they should have been included in the Extended Editions though[/b:2liggk9s]."
Perhaps you just don't want to see something that contradicts your Narrative about "Pernicious Liberalism".
Michael Duncan Clarke is actually an inspired idea Turin . But I insist that if he were cast he should practice a British Accent .
As for who would play it well enough... Ron Perlman or (no laughing) Michael Clarke Duncan. Voice, presence, could be a brilliant casting choice. Plus I could also playing an impatient, untrusting bear. With a deep throaty laugh at Bilbo. And then a shadow of fierce fury destroying the golbins and wargs.
Which now makes me wonder. What should the movie be? Two ideas come immediately to mind.
(1) Prequel to LotR?
(2) Bilbo and Company's Exciting (and at times Hilarious) Quest to Steal Treasure from an Awesome Dragon?
This was not some whimsical childrens tale, it was a scene with underlying darkness: danger, queer magic, things old from primeval depths; things only brought into sharp focus by the possibly whimsical idea that these creatures were the servants of an apiarist. In a surficial way, this arrangement might be seen as almost silly (to some), to those who do not think it grown-up to have a great powerful Man-Bear keep bees and have cute animals as his servants. How wrong. They are not his servants, they are his subjects. They are also under the same sort of queer enchantment Beorn is under himself!
Tolkien was a genius in the way he made the Real and the Unreal (darker things emanating and drerdged up from the subconcious) meld together to compile a truly unsettling set of scenes. Of course, some people, tied into ideas of The Hobbit being a Disney story, miss the point completely, and insult Tolkien's memory by calling these scenes, like they do most other scenes in the book, [i:zzuczfyq]whimsy[/i:zzuczfyq].
Of course everything you say is correct...except for the fact you still don't understand what Whimsy means. Sure, on one level it's all Archetype and Myth. But it ALSO Whimsical.
Still, he might just pull off the role.