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

Thread: Peter Jackson talks about casting Richard Armitage-New

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Hobbit (Movie) > Peter Jackson talks about casting Richard Armitage-New   [1] [2] >>
Here is a link to an interesting commentary by Mr. Jackson on the casting of Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield. Enjoy! :P http://community.livejournal.com/ohnoth ... 81761.html
[quote="Peter Jackson":1d31v71k]Thorin Oakenshield is a tough, heroic character, and he certainly should give Leggie and Aragorn a run for their money in the heartthrob stakes — despite being four feet tall[/quote:1d31v71k] Oh dear god. :roll:
Ditto, Sie Eldorion. :roll: :roll:
Well don't say as I didn't warn you. Its all coming down around our ears! I had the misfortune of seeing the whole Saruman/Gandalf old man fight again recently and I can only imagine what visuals ridiculousness PJ has in store for us when the WC go up against Dol Guldur in TH- this going to be very bad I fear. The more stuff like this I read the greater my worry grows.
I don't know about you, but I have faith in PJ and I expect nothing less than an excellent Thorin Oakenshield. With make up, prosthetics and all their do-dads I think Mr. Armitage can pull it off.
Even if I had faith in PJ after LOTR [i:jgksuo96]<with regards to faithfulness>[/i:jgksuo96], a statement from him saying that he wants Armitage!Thorin to be a hunk would have pretty much destroyed it. :P
As long as he's not going to be the Terminator, we'll be fine :P He's supposed to kick ass as well as being old and grumpy you know <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' /> That said, I don't like PJ's choice at all though, but we will see what make up and script/acting will do Edit: Missing words
Hunk implies a certain level of attractiveness and even sensuality, at least to me, especially given PJ's mention of heartthrobs. When I hear "hunk" I'm inclined to think more of, say, Brad Pitt than Arnold Schwarzenegger. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />
Why are all fantasy Dwarves automatically assumed to be fat ugly/cute little dudes. I, for one, think it's a pretty cool idea to break that stereotype. I thought all you "purists" were sick of the stereotypical Dwarf that Gimli seemed to be. Clearly Jackson promises to give us a variety of Dwarves, some of them obviously not the bumbling stereotypes you guys were afraid he would make them all out to be. [b:dichcvr3]GB[/b:dichcvr3]
"stereotypical Dwarf that Gimli seemed to be" My complaint was never that Gimli was stereotypical (of course he is Tolkien invented -or at least strongly resupported-the stereotype) it's that he's reduced to a badly written supporting comedy role. It goes back to what an adaptation is. I don't think its PJ's job to change the characters Tolkien wrote and never once whilst reading TH, or for anyone else I know whose read it for that matter, was Thorin associated with the word 'hunk'. And given he has cast a man known for his good looks and knee weakening effect on the fairer sex I see significant changes taking shape to the character of Thorin and to the possible role PJ has in mind for him. The omens are not good for those of us who already think he took invention too far in adapting LotR. This is shaping up like its going to be far, far worse for that sin.
With my current dieting - alongside a whim I have at the moment to exercise a bit, which might become more than a whim - I'll be a hunk soon, Eldo. I'll send you a photo. :lol: As to adaptations by PJ, you'll no doubt be surprised to know I agree totally with you, Mr Tyrant. I thought things could not get worse - that teaches me for underestimating PJ. :shock:
What we basically know about TH film so far is; 1. The WC will have a big part in the story. 2. Radagast will be in it and may even have a significant part. 3. There's a love story between two made up elves. 4. Bilbo will be more action orientated and take part in the battle. 5. From the inclusion of Frodo's father in the cast we can also assume the set up or even the birth of Frodo will feature (maybe even Drogo's death?) 6. Thorin's a hunk. Anyone else notice a pattern here of PJ and the Coven just making everything up and rewriting Tolkien's book (again)?
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":mdmv6imi]I thought all you "purists" were sick of the stereotypical Dwarf that Gimli seemed to be.[/quote:mdmv6imi] You're correct that I didn't really like Gimli being made into a caricature of the D&D drunken barbarian, but I think there's a middle ground PJ could have struck between that and hunkiness. :?
[quote="pettytyrant101":11b1tyga]3. There's a love story between two made up elves. 5. From the inclusion of Frodo's father in the cast we can also assume the set up or even the birth of Frodo will feature (maybe even Drogo's death?)[/quote:11b1tyga] Were these two confirmed anywhere except that one casting call? I had thought that one was a fake, but I may be remembering incorrectly.
I'm sorry to be back-tracking, but does PJ honestly think he could make a dwarf look as amazingly attractive as ORLANDO BLOOM? He's really lost it...
I no longer have a clue Eldo what is a fake story and whats not. They all sound equally ludicrous to my purist ears- I cannot tell the difference anymore-I would have thought a hunky Thorin was a made up joke but no- PJ really seems to be saying this and casting for it. Is a made up love story any more ludicrous a suggestion? I hope its all been a joke so far and he's suddenly going to announce that he's not doing any of this after all and he's just going to adapt the book as is. Now wouldn't that be nice?
[quote="Eldorion":kfzpx05i]Hunk implies a certain level of attractiveness and even sensuality, at least to me, especially given PJ's mention of heartthrobs. When I hear "hunk" I'm inclined to think more of, say, Brad Pitt than Arnold Schwarzenegger. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />[/quote:kfzpx05i] Was not familar with the word hunk, but now that you've explained it to me, I understand where you're all coming from :lol: Thorin, a sex symbol? Who would have thought that? <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' />
"Thorin, a sex symbol? Who would have thought that?"-Ringdrotten PJ and the Coven apparently! Seems they read something in TH the rest of us missed.
Actually, being so many male characters, maybe this is an opportunity for PJ to further the cause of Gay Rights. Thorin could have a "relationship" with Bombur (who might, or might not, be pregnant). Afterall, we do need to make the story palatable for the computer game playing-short attention span-Tolkien Liberal crowd (both young and old), and there should be more morality in TH. Actually, we should have a few lady dwarves for gender balance too. Sexy ones - but in a politically equal sort of way - sexy like Brad Pitt's missus... Now now, guys! You may think I'm being mischievous here, but the fact is... oh yes... I am! :? (err.. I have to add this NB because I mentioned Gay Rights. I want you to know here I'm all for them. I say this because (1) I actually believe they should have them, and because (2) I'm afraid of being thought Politically Incorrect).
Imagine some of the dwarves being really hot chicks, and when they sing they would do all these crazy sexy dances.. how wrong that would be :shock:
[quote="Ringdrotten":cvaha97b]Imagine some of the dwarves being really hot chicks, and when they sing they would do all these crazy sexy dances.. how wrong that would be :shock:[/quote:cvaha97b] If its going to be a corrupt version of the Hobbit then bring on the hot female dwarves. :lol:
Actually I will not be in the slightest surprised if at some point in the films they reveal Fili and Kili to be sisters. Or if they want to be really leftie and right on about it, lesbian lover dwarves. If Tolkien wasn't already dead he'd shoot himself.
[quote="Ringdrotten":2rklwaq8]Was not familar with the word hunk, but now that you've explained it to me, I understand where you're all coming from :lol: Thorin, a sex symbol? Who would have thought that? <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' />[/quote:2rklwaq8] While I'm sure some people, somewhere on the Internet (GB.... :P ) will defend this decision, I am highly doubtful that anyone seriously considered it before this announcement. :lol:
[quote="Odo Banks":2cic4xpv]Actually, we should have a few lady dwarves for gender balance too. Sexy ones - but in a politically equal sort of way - sexy like Brad Pitt's missus...[/quote:2cic4xpv] The cognitive dissonance I had from trying to imagine Angelina Jolie in Gimli-style prosthetics and make-up just made my head explode. :cry:
I think that the best way to reconcile Peter Jackson's changes to TH/LOTR is to think of it in this way: Both Peter Jackson and Tolkien are looking at the beautiful and extensive history of Middle Earth, and each tell the story in their own creative and interesting style, in which both are great works of art. The latter's being a great work of literature, and the former's being a great movie. To me, that makes the changes that Jackson implements irrelevant, and makes me simply look at the content (changed or not). Of course, Tolkien's view of the history of Middle Earth shall always be the best. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />
Of course, Tolkien's view of the history of Middle Earth shall always be the best. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> And PJ's view of the history of Middle-earth shall always be a farcical mess. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />
[quote="Durin":1l69aaop]Both Peter Jackson and Tolkien are looking at the beautiful and extensive history of Middle Earth, and each tell the story in their own creative and interesting style, in which both are great works of art. The latter's being a great work of literature, and the former's being a great movie.[/quote:1l69aaop] I'm not entirely comfortable with that, because Jackson is merely adapting Tolkien (even if he makes his own goofy additions), whereas Tolkien was creating something original. I look at the situation more as Tolkien creating a rich, beautiful tapestry of storytelling and warbuilding, whereas Jackson attempts to tell a cinematic version, and while I see him as telling an entertaining story, I think he falls short of the original in several areas.
[quote="pettytyrant101":vsqqdxvc]Actually I will not be in the slightest surprised if at some point in the films they reveal Fili and Kili to be sisters. Or if they want to be really leftie and right on about it, lesbian lover dwarves. If Tolkien wasn't already dead he'd shoot himself.[/quote:vsqqdxvc] Well why not? How do we know that Fili and Kili weren't sisters? Apparently Dwarf Lasses have Beards to, so how could you tell? <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> [b:vsqqdxvc]GB[/b:vsqqdxvc]
You know I'm usually a great supporter of PJ's, but I do quibble with his changing of things and adding of things. Is he using Tolkien to tap an existing audience that he can entice in to see the products of his own imagination? Tolkien as Token and Peter Jackson as Master of Fantasy? Makes excellent business sense - like not paying workers fairly makes good business sense - and PJ gets to show off his Creative Brilliance at the same time ...
Well, apparently Jackson did indeed do right by the Kiwi actors and press for the legislation that will benefit them; why else end their boycott and throw in with Jackson in the end? And yes, by giving us his own interpretation of Tolkien's classic works, he benefits not only himself, but those of us that aren't going to sob into their Buckie that he's not rendering THEIR interpretation of Tolkien's classic works on-screen. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> [b:hz3il77x]GB[/b:hz3il77x]
"that he's not rendering THEIR interpretation of Tolkien's classic works on-screen."- GB I don't want him to render [b:30l4yiyr]my[/b:30l4yiyr] interpretation I just want him to render something that's an adaptation of Tolkien (remember him GB? Writer, wrote some stuff about ME before PJ came along and claimed it for his own and made a complete cock of it). What I don't want is to have to watch 4 hours of made up sh*t from PJ and the Coven (who are considerably poorer writers than Tolkien ever was) with barely a nod to the source material.
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":39iuqw45]And yes, by giving us his own interpretation of Tolkien's classic works, he benefits not only himself, but those of us that aren't going to sob into their Buckie that he's not rendering THEIR interpretation of Tolkien's classic works on-screen. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> [/quote:39iuqw45] Petty beat me to the best response, but I'd add that the whole "interpretation" defense is bunk. PJ didn't make his "interpretation" of Tolkien's work, he made his own work that drew heavily from Tolkien's. One does not change the motivations and backstories of main characters (among many other things) because of matters of interpretation, they're just changes to the story, plain and simple. There is no way you can "interpret" Tolkien's Aragorn as not wanting to become King of Gondor, that's something that PJ made up on his own. I'd like to see Tolkien's story, not PJ's, especially since PJ claims to be adapting Tolkien.
[quote="Eldorion":2k9vbgya][quote="Gandalfs Beard":2k9vbgya]And yes, by giving us his own interpretation of Tolkien's classic works, he benefits not only himself, but those of us that aren't going to sob into their Buckie that he's not rendering THEIR interpretation of Tolkien's classic works on-screen. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> [/quote:2k9vbgya] Petty beat me to the best response, but I'd add that the whole "interpretation" defense is bunk. PJ didn't make his "interpretation" of Tolkien's work, [b:2k9vbgya][size=150:2k9vbgya]he made his own work that drew heavily from Tolkien's.[/size:2k9vbgya][/b:2k9vbgya] One does not change the motivations and backstories of main characters (among many other things) because of matters of interpretation, they're just changes to the story, plain and simple. There is no way you can "interpret" Tolkien's Aragorn as not wanting to become King of Gondor, that's something that PJ made up on his own. I'd like to see Tolkien's story, not PJ's, especially since PJ claims to be adapting Tolkien.[/quote:2k9vbgya] [quote:2k9vbgya]in·ter·pre·ta·tion noun in-?t?r-pr?-?t?-sh?n, -p?- Definition of INTERPRETATION 1 : the act or the result of interpreting : explanation [b:2k9vbgya]2 : a particular adaptation or version of a work, method, or style[/b:2k9vbgya] 3 : a teaching technique that combines factual with stimulating explanatory information <natural history interpretation program> adapt verb ?-?dapt, a- Definition of ADAPT transitive verb : [b:2k9vbgya]to make fit (as for a specific or new use or situation) [size=150:2k9vbgya]often by modification[/size:2k9vbgya][/b:2k9vbgya] intransitive verb : to become adapted — adapt·ed·ness noun[/quote:2k9vbgya] [quote:2k9vbgya]"he made his own work that drew heavily from Tolkien's."[/quote:2k9vbgya] In other words an adaptation/interpretation. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> :P :ugeek: [b:2k9vbgya]GB[/b:2k9vbgya]
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":1o2t18am]a particular adaptation or version of a work, method, or style[/quote:1o2t18am] I will concede that you are right about the meaning of the word, but at the same time, I am still not pining for my own particular version of the story as you suggested, but for a direct adaptation of [b:1o2t18am]THE[/b:1o2t18am] story. <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> [quote:1o2t18am][b:1o2t18am]to make fit[/b:1o2t18am] (as for a specific or new use or situation) often by modification[/quote:1o2t18am] How did PJ's changes to Aragorn make the character fit better?
BTW, GB, I was looking through some old threads and guess what I found: [url=http://the-hobbit-movie.com/forum/will-the-movies-need-to-cater-to-fangirls-406.html#p4195:2l6tktj5]hunky dwarves[/url:2l6tktj5]! Who knew you could see the future. :P :lol:
[quote="Eldorion":3eu5nh3e] How did PJ's changes to Aragorn make the character fit better?[/quote:3eu5nh3e] Well, film makers always seem to think that a character has to develop/go through some changes throughout a movie, and if they had portrayed Aragorn like he is in the books, he wouldn't have been a very dynamic character (on film). Also, the "reluctant king" type might seem more noble or whatever, better suited for film perhaps.
[quote="Eldorion":256yqicw][quote="Gandalfs Beard":256yqicw]a particular adaptation or version of a work, method, or style[/quote:256yqicw] I will concede that you are right about the meaning of the word, but at the same time, I am still not pining for my own particular version of the story as you suggested, but for a direct adaptation of [b:256yqicw]THE[/b:256yqicw] story. <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> [/quote:256yqicw] A "direct" adptation as you interpret it. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> [quote:256yqicw][quote:256yqicw][b:256yqicw]to make fit[/b:256yqicw] (as for a specific or new use or situation) often by modification[/quote:256yqicw] How did PJ's changes to Aragorn make the character fit better?[/quote:256yqicw] Answered at length on some other thread not too long ago. I'm surprised you don't recall it? :mrgreen: [b:256yqicw]GB[/b:256yqicw]
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":2g53wvmp]A "direct" adptation as you interpret it. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> [/quote:2g53wvmp] No, actually, that's not what I said. Why do you seem to think that you know what I want better than I do? I don't have a whole lot of specific ideas in mind, just a general set of criteria for faithfulness, within which there is a great deal of room for relatively minor (I might as well use the word since you were right about it...) interpretations. [quote:2g53wvmp]Answered at length on some other thread not too long ago. I'm surprised you don't recall it? :mrgreen: [/quote:2g53wvmp] You've recycled your arguments over and over again, and they get struck down by petty and myself over and over again, only for you to abandon the thread until a few weeks have passed, at which point you repeat the process as if the earlier responses had never occurred. All these instances have run together in my mind because they follow the same model, so no, I don't recall your specific arguments about Aragorn.
What robust debate we are having! Everyone is getting their claws out! You too, Eldo. I can but approve. :lol: (These things are always fun ---- until someone gets hurt, that is. :twisted: ) On this discussion about "interpretation" and "adaptation": yes, as the "dictionary goes" you have a point GB - "interpretation" bears a strong relationship with "adaptation." But words always have "contexts" and you know it, naughty Beard. You know exactly what Mr Tyrant and Eldo are getting at! :x In the case under discussion they are saying "adaptation" is an "interpretation" of what a story is; "adaptation" is not a deliberate and unnecesary "changing" of a story paying scant regard to what is already "the" story as writ. You michievous win-at-all-costs Beard, you! :x
"Well, film makers always seem to think that a character has to develop/go through some changes throughout a movie, and if they had portrayed Aragorn like he is in the books, he wouldn't have been a very dynamic character (on film). Also, the "reluctant king" type might seem more noble or whatever, better suited for film perhaps."- Ringdrotten This is whats wrong with blockbuster films. Its film making by numbers and the arguments are depressing. He has to go on a journey? Why? Because he's a character in a film. Bugger that, when was the last time you were introduced to someone and they turned out to be like a blank slate who then went on a journey of personal change? Never thats when. When you meet people they already have a past. Its what makes them people. When I met Strider for the first time he was clearly a man with a past, he was someone who had already had a journey, a real person. Its one of the reasons he works. Not every character has to have a story arc, a little mini-tale within a tale. Aragorn is a man who has a love he may never be able to be with. He's traveled the known world and when we meet him he is mysterious, living in the wilds and a little dangerous. He is an interesting guy in short, he doesn't need to go on a journey anywhere. PJ writes film scripts by the rules, its filming by numbers (odd for a man whose career started by playing about with the rules of film) and Tolkien was the opposite he wrote what he wanted how he wanted and to hell with other peoples ideas of the conventions of novel writing- its why they are so mismatched.
I don't think I've ever "abandoned" an argument that you think you've won Eldo, only to return weeks later acting as if it never happened. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> In any case, this whole current argument is based on a comment that I actually directed at Petty. The "sobbing into his Buckie" should have been a clue. I know that your "purism" is actually quite relative, and that you are no doubt prepared to enjoy Jackson's Hobbit movies as "Fan Fiction." Fair Enough in my book. <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> I feel sorriest for those that have already decided they will hate the films. "Win at all costs." Really Odo--who would try to do that on a forum? :P :lol: [b:2c7j84cs]GB[/b:2c7j84cs]
I do too, GB! We should not be put through this. We should not have to see Tolkien's reputation bowlderized! Mr Tyrant, as almost always (in Tolkien matters but next to nothing else :P ), spot on! PJ was cutting edge when young (Leftish actually) and now he's bowlderized himself to make the bucks (Rightened himself!) :ugeek:
GB, I apologize for my attitude and behaviour earlier in this thread. I should not have done that. :oops:
If anyone should be offended (and in demand of an apology!) its me!! "sobbing into his Buckie"- a horrible contradictory thing to say GB. If you have a buckie you ain't sobbing (well not till about the fifth or sixth bottle anyway and by that time sobbing is most likely the least of your problems).
[quote="pettytyrant101":j6by4a2r]If anyone should be offended (and in demand of an apology!) its me!! "sobbing into his Buckie"- a horrible contradictory thing to say GB. If you have a buckie you ain't sobbing (well not till about the fifth or sixth bottle anyway and by that time sobbing is most likely the least of your problems).[/quote:j6by4a2r] :lol:
Whether I'm wrong or right, Eldo, I always make a point of NEVER apologizing to GB. It's just not cricket if you ask me. :ugeek:
:lol: [b:3869rn86]GB[/b:3869rn86]
You know looking back over this thread I fear I may have discovered why people tend not to hang about! Some perfectly nice person such as Ann Marie comes along, joins the forum, makes a perfectly reasonable thread about Mr Armitage and look what we've done to it. Is this respectable behaviour I ask? Now you may say who am I to say such things when I'm as guilty as any and I am, but it just occurred to me as I was reading the thread that this may be a deterrent to new members, especially if they start a thread themselves. Just a thought. Perhaps Ann Marie or some other new members might say if this is so or not. I hope not, but it is a worry.
Good point, Petty. Perhaps there should be a great big warning sticky in the New Members section about this! <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' />
I think you make a good point, petty. I will try to keep that in mind. <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' />
  [1] [2] >>