|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ecthelionsbeard
Lorien
Jan 31 2015, 7:12am
Post #1 of 56
(2491 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Thorin Oaken-shield...
|
Can't Post
|
|
The bitter, angry dwarf? Or the noble warrior? How well do y'all think Richard Armitage played such a complex character? Do you think his performance registered consistently in both areas or do you think one over shadowed the other?
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Half-elven
Jan 31 2015, 7:19am
Post #2 of 56
(1841 views)
Shortcut
|
I think it would have been a little better if he had shown more emotional dynamics. There were moments, such as when he embraced Bilbo for saving him at the end of AUJ, but so much of the time he was just glowering.
|
|
|
demnation
Rohan
Jan 31 2015, 7:56am
Post #3 of 56
(1848 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm a bit mystified by peoples reaction to movie Thorin as a wonderfully complex character. To me he was pretty one note and spent most of the three movies scowling angrily. Not much better than the book version, IMO. That said, I think Armitage did a wonderful job with what he was given, so it's more of a writing issue. Not his fault.
"It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule." Gandalf, "The Last Debate."
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Jan 31 2015, 11:19am
Post #4 of 56
(1790 views)
Shortcut
|
He played the character well and has some really good moments.
But I am flabbergasted how many people think the character (writing) or the acting are that complex. Actors such as Bernhard Hill or Sean Bean come to my mind when I think of "complex portrayals" in the Middle-earth movies, not necessarily RA.
It is pretty bland most of the time, IMHO. That doesn't have to be a bad thing... But subtle it sure isn't. IMHO.
And no, this wasn't an Oscar performance. Also imho, of course .
"I am afraid it is only too likely to be true what you say about the critics and the public. I am dreading the publication for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at." J.R.R. Tolkien
We all have our hearts and minds one way or another invested in these books and movies. So we all mind and should show the necessary respect.
|
|
|
Anubis
Rivendell
Jan 31 2015, 12:05pm
Post #5 of 56
(1735 views)
Shortcut
|
I liked RA portrayal of Thorin, but, for me, he isn´t on the same level as Sean Bean or Bernard Hill. I think it is partly due to the movie interpretation of Thorin. Too heroic and manly and too little "dwarvish".
As for his looks, I wish he looked older and had a longer beard.
Overall, I think the casting was not spot on in this particular case, though I understand why others enjoy him more than I, and I also understand what PJ wanted to do with the character.
|
|
|
Thrain II
Lorien
Jan 31 2015, 12:13pm
Post #6 of 56
(1735 views)
Shortcut
|
it was balanced very good in the movies. Richard made Thorin very likeable despite the scenes where we wouldn't agree with him, which I think is very important, not only because he is one of the main characters, but also because you want the audience to feel for his tragic fate.
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Jan 31 2015, 12:36pm
Post #7 of 56
(1745 views)
Shortcut
|
…and for me he is the best actor in the entire trilogy – and the best for his role – after Sir Ian McKellen. Martin Freeman is probably on a par or just below him in this respect.
RA's portrayal of the character, the thought that went into it, his dedication to it, the way he can use his eyes to almost speak and his visual aspect are perfect as far as I'm concerned. Brilliantly done…
|
|
|
balbo biggins
Rohan
Jan 31 2015, 1:37pm
Post #8 of 56
(1725 views)
Shortcut
|
i have to admit, i can largely watch the trilogy and sort of ignore him. Compared to say balin (ken stott) he is very bland. Even the brilliant ryan gage has more impact than thorin. but idont think thorin is particularly designed to be such a main character in the book, he is just a old bitter dwarf, who only comes alive in the final scenes.
ive never thought armitage was a particularly versatile actor, he always plays one dimensions. he has no range in his voice just a deep authroative type tone that i suppose is why he was cast as thorin, but also can be applied to , a spy, or bad guy or a king (new alice in wonderland film) I thinkhell be typecast for many years to come.
i think it would have been better over 1 film, but three and i get bored of him fairly easily.
plus he doesnt play a dwarf, he might be dressed as one, but he could easily be just a man.
|
|
|
Riven Delve
Tol Eressea
Jan 31 2015, 1:46pm
Post #9 of 56
(1718 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yeah, if they had wanted to do Thorin right
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
they should have hired a real Dwarf king instead of a human actor.
“Tollers,” Lewis said to Tolkien, “there is too little of what we really like in stories. I am afraid we shall have to try and write some ourselves.”
|
|
|
balbo biggins
Rohan
Jan 31 2015, 1:54pm
Post #10 of 56
(1680 views)
Shortcut
|
they should have hired a real Dwarf king instead of a human actor.
cant fault your logic but Its just an opinion mate, no need to be sarky.
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Jan 31 2015, 1:55pm
Post #11 of 56
(1695 views)
Shortcut
|
And I haven't been 'bored of' him once – he is the best thing about the trilogy for me. Wonderful actor.
|
|
|
Miss-Merriweather
Bree
Jan 31 2015, 2:08pm
Post #12 of 56
(1682 views)
Shortcut
|
I love it when I can tell what a character thinks and feels just by watching the actor's glances and gestures.
So: great job, Mr Armitage...!
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Jan 31 2015, 2:37pm
Post #13 of 56
(1693 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think his performance is outstanding...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In his hands the character becomes far more complex than ever Thorin is in the book - or at least, the complexities readers have imagined and implied are brought to life onscreen.
I'd say that Richard Armitage acted bitterness, anger and nobility equally well. He does full justice to Balin's remark early on - "There is one I could follow; there is one I could call king", which makes his succumbing to the dragon sickness all the more painful, because even at his most unreasonable there is still something sympathetic about him. He also conveys a tremendous range of emotion with his eyes and expression alone.
|
|
|
arithmancer
Grey Havens
Jan 31 2015, 2:53pm
Post #14 of 56
(1663 views)
Shortcut
|
In his hands the character becomes far more complex than ever Thorin is in the book - or at least, the complexities readers have imagined and implied are brought to life onscreen.
I was shocked, after watching AUJ, to realize in thinking about it that the moments that lingered most strongly in my memory concerned Thorin. (He was not a favorite of mine in the books). And my conclusion at the time was that they were going to give us a version of Thorin that would not make us wonder why the other Dwarves would remain loyal to him until the end despite his eventual fall into dragon sickness, or why Bilbo felt his loss so much.
And I don't get the one note/not subtle complaints, He was a bitter and angry Dwarf, yes. But we were also shown this bitterness and anger came from a place of (positive) emotion, from a deep love of that which he has lost. Moments such as the singing of the Misty Mountain song, his overhearing Bilbo and Bofur's conversation, and his first entry into Erebor, among others, are lovely moments in which he neither glowers nor smiles, but conveys (to me) a great depth of feeling.
I also found moments included where he is angry, but does something right, to be effective as character writing as well. An example would be the Stone Giant scene. He's gruff with Bilbo as they set out from Rivendell and tells Bilbo to keep up as Bilbo gazes for one last time on Rivendell. He's no-bones-about-it hurtful, and unfairly so, to Bilbo immediately after the Giants. But in between, with no change in demeanor, he has risked his own life to save Bilbo's.
|
|
|
Elarie
Grey Havens
Jan 31 2015, 3:53pm
Post #15 of 56
(1639 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I thought he gave a wonderful, subtle performance
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
with all the complexity anyone could want. Everything you could want to know about Thorin was right there, especially in the eyes and the voice.
I'm not at all a fan of the big screaming, crying, watch-me-emote kinds of performances that always seem to attract attention, so I'm just really happy that The Hobbit gave us actors who could show us what the characters were feeling and thinking from the inside out, in a way that leaves you interested and wanting to know more.
__________________
Gold is the strife of kinsmen,
and fire of the flood-tide,
and the path of the serpent.
(Old Icelandic Fe rune poem)
|
|
|
ShireHorse
Rohan
Jan 31 2015, 4:16pm
Post #16 of 56
(1661 views)
Shortcut
|
|
He has no range in his voice? Really?!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
RA has an incredible range; you only have to listen to one of his audiobooks to be amazed. He characterises old and young, men, women and children, all with different tones, ranges and accents.
His regular speaking voice is only deep-ish. But for Thorin and because he knows the book, he went for that truly deep and ringing voice that sounds 'like a horn in the valley.' He worked so hard at finding this voice that fans were worried that he would damage his vocal cords. We are so lucky that we have that splendid interpretation of Thorin's voice in the film. And, although I love Sean Bean as Boromir, his is a really one-note voice spoken always, always with the same Sheffield accent, whatever his role. And there are problems with that Northern-accented portrayal of a man who was supposed to be a sort of prince.
The other thing that we need to be truly grateful for is that, as a wearer of heavy prosthetics, RA is able to act with his eyes and this ability really enhances his performance in the last film where he is required to show a whole range of emotions, not via the script but through his eyes.
And he said he was always hunting for Thorin's smile in the earlier films: he was aware that the character is stern and grumpy and tried to avoid the one-note glare. So, we have the gentleness and tenderness in his face and voice when he talks to Balin at Bag End. And the smile when Gandalf comes to their rescue when he's tied up in a sack. And his despair and fear when he hears Elrond talking about his possible madness at Rivendell; and the warm embrace that he gives Bilbo after he has been saved. And the look of joy in his eyes when he sees Erebor from a distance at the end of AUJ. And the affection and flash of understanding he gives Kili when he tells him he must stay behind. And the overwhelming emotions that he feels as he enters Erebor; "I know these walls."
And 'the brilliant Ryan Gage'? I think your admiration has been directed towards the scenery-chewing performances rather than the eloquent subtlety that is RA's Thorin. You missed an awful lot.
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Jan 31 2015, 4:41pm
Post #17 of 56
(1616 views)
Shortcut
|
Beautifully put and I completely agree.
|
|
|
Never_Underestimate_A_Dwarf
Rivendell
Jan 31 2015, 5:03pm
Post #18 of 56
(1624 views)
Shortcut
|
Although I love the character, Thorin can be an unlikable jerk at times (most times). But RIchard portrays the complexities well; and you can understand why he's bitter and angry. Of the issues I have with the movies, this performance is definitely not one of them - it's actually a highlight. However, I wish there were more scenes that softened him out, particularly with Bilbo or his nephews.
|
|
|
swordwhale
Tol Eressea
Jan 31 2015, 5:46pm
Post #19 of 56
(1607 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think Shirehorse summed it up..........
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I have a deep admiration for actors who can emote from under layers of makeup too.
Armitage says much with his eyes.
Also, totally understand the look of the Dwarves (which has been nitpicked elsewhere). There is great variety in the band of Dwarves, (which we needed to differentiate them) some archetypal looks in some of them, but for the "Hero Characters", they were surely looking for a type that modern audiences would find attractive while still having the sturdy stolid hardiness of Dwarves.
Also, it destroyed many stereotypes we've got stuck in our heads from, i dunno, Tolkien??????
Na 'Aear, na 'Aear! Mýl 'lain nallol, I sűl ribiel a i falf 'loss reviol...
To the sea, to the sea, the white gulls are crying, the wind is blowing and the white foam is flying...
|
|
|
malickfan
Gondor
Jan 31 2015, 7:03pm
Post #20 of 56
(1582 views)
Shortcut
|
...I partially agree with you, Armitage did give quite a good performance in the sense of nailing down Thorin's authority and baring as a King in Exile...but personally I didn't connect with it at all, others have said below Armitage gave a subtle multi layered performance, but I can't really see that myself, or agree with it-Ken Stott's Balin was very subtle and dignified but stole the films for me, Armitage had much more dialogue and backstory to work with...but just left me cold, the similarities to PJ's Aragorn (in terms of appearance and King in Exile) didn't help either (come to think of it, I was always more impressed by David Wenham and Sean Bean's performances than Mortensen's in LOTR).
I've only seen each of the first 2 films two and a bit times (I think, haven't read the books in a while either) and I'm not in any hurry to rewatch them, but Armitage did nothing to grab me at all.
In all honesty (and this is probably heresy on this forum) I actually liked Thorin more in the book-old bitter and arrogant he may be, but amusing, courteous and very imposing all the same, I found him a much more interesting character than Thorin in the films (Del Torro made it very clear he had no problems casting a Older Thorin when he was attached...), in a weird way I think I found Jackson's attempts at making Thorin more heroic and 'likeable' in the film off putting.
I read The Hobbit after LOTR, so I've always found it hard to reconcile the two tones of the books, I generally approach The Hobbit as a stand alone fairytale, and after reading about the near flawless Aragorn and Faramir in the books, it was to be frank a relief to get a main character who was a bit of a git...I sympathized with Thorin because he wasn't a clear cut Heroic warrior, he was a stubborn flawed git on a quest for money, much more flawed and real than the high and mighty Aragorn...
Still picture Ian Mcshane in the role...
Just my personal (admittedly biased) view.
|
|
|
AshNazg
Gondor
Jan 31 2015, 8:18pm
Post #21 of 56
(1593 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think the biggest problem is "Dragon Sickness". Which completely flattened his character...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In the book Thorin is roused with greed by the gold, and it takes a big battle and a little hobbit to pull him to his senses. Only in death does he see his error and realise how unimportant the gold really was in relation to simpler things in life.
In the movie Thorin's entire personality is excused with the introduction of "Dragon Sickness". What (in the book) is Thorin's defining character trait (a greedy dwarf) becomes a symptom of illness and leaves the actual character without personality. It's as if the writers couldn't face giving their main majestic dwarf a character flaw, despite this flaw defining his character in the book. 
It's odd because one of the first things you learn in screen-play writing is that to make a character interesting they need to have a relate-able flaw - something the audience needs to recognise and want to see them overcome - but in the movie Thorin doesn't have this, he is introduced as a flawless (and therefore dull) character, then in film 3 he's a dull character with an affliction and then the affliction is miraculously overcome and then he dies learning nothing - because it was all the dragon sickness' fault. It's really bad writing.
|
|
|
ShireHorse
Rohan
Jan 31 2015, 9:33pm
Post #22 of 56
(1591 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think that the only major character presented as flawless
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
when, in the book, he definitely isn't, is Bilbo. That really annoyed me. And then, of course, there's the heroic and noble and family-oriented Bard. Perfect is too poor a word to describe him. But, I don't see anyone saying that they can't relate to either of them. On the other hand, the words used to describe Thorin in this thread have been along the lines of 'jerk' and 'git'. He is over-stern with his nephews, bad-tempered with Bilbo, edgy with Gandalf, suspicious of Elrond, autocratic with Bard. And his attempts to kill Smaug - not done because of greed but because he refuses to die like the bodies he finds in the tunnels - result in the dragon destroying Lake Town.
And yet....and yet.... He is someone who, because of the way that RA interprets him, not only the dwarves but also most of the audience would follow and call king. Greed is far too simplistic an emotion or sin: Thorin deserves more complexity of character than that. On the journey, we see his less than perfect side and his weaknesses; but, we also see his strengths. And so, when faced with the challenge of dragon sickness, we just don't know which way he will jump. An illness that he struggles with and overcomes is a darn sight more interesting than lumbering him with the boring sin of greed. It's just so...so...Christian. Leave that to the simplistic preaching of C S Lewis.
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Jan 31 2015, 9:38pm
Post #23 of 56
(1563 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Wow, really can't agree with you
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
and I realize it's an opinion, which you are obviously entitled to, but I would NEVER describe him as "one note." Particularly in BOFA, I've said before that it felt like a Jekyl & Hyde performance, his facial expressions, the tone of his voice and how it would often quaver, and his confrontation with Dwalin was just so AMAZING!!! And I DO think he deserved an Oscar for that performance - but that's just my opinion.
Why yes, I DO look like Anna Friel!
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Jan 31 2015, 11:32pm
Post #24 of 56
(1537 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Did you not notice dragon sickness in the book?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The 'enchanted desire of the hoard' is a factor in the story so you can hardly blame Peter Jackson and co for writing it into the script - imagine the outcry if they hadn't!
But I don't agree at all that his personality is 'excused' by it. From the outset Thorin is shown to be proud, abrupt to the point of unkindness, prejudiced.... I think you're mistaking the sympathetic aspects of his nature as brought out in Richard Armitage's performance for lack of faults. Thorin in the film is a character we respond to but he certainly isn't flawless. Pride perhaps more than greed. I think his part has been written exceptionally well, making a much more nuanced and interesting character than Thorin is in the book.
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Feb 1 2015, 12:34am
Post #25 of 56
(1522 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I meant to say in the entire two trilogies, of course.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Someone mentioned Sean Bean – he doesn't even come close. I've seen him in many parts (generally spivs on UK TV). Now there is a one-dimensional actor if ever there was one. The fact that his character (and that of Bernard Hill, who is a somewhat better actor, though I wouldn't call him 'great', or better than RA) died so were sympathised with, does not make them great actors.
…and for me he is the best actor in the entire trilogy – and the best for his role – after Sir Ian McKellen. Martin Freeman is probably on a par or just below him in this respect.
RA's portrayal of the character, the thought that went into it, his dedication to it, the way he can use his eyes to almost speak and his visual aspect are perfect as far as I'm concerned. Brilliantly done…
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed
[
1
