|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ange1e4e5
Gondor
Feb 16 2016, 1:32am
Post #151 of 174
(779 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Which ones would you say have pulled it off well?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Feb 16 2016, 1:42am
Post #152 of 174
(775 views)
Shortcut
|
there's many decent book to film adaptations that remain true to material on which they were based. Errol Flynn's The Adventures of Robin Hood comes to mind.
|
|
|
ange1e4e5
Gondor
Feb 16 2016, 1:59am
Post #153 of 174
(767 views)
Shortcut
|
|
My favorite adaptations from book to screen
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Sherlock Holmes (Jeremy Brett)
Harry Potter
I did make an enormous possible casting list for The Silmarillion, who I felt would be right for an adaptation. I also think there should be a "creative consultant," who approves any changes made, similar to how J.K. Rowling acted when the Harry Potter films were made. Offhand, Christopher Tolkien probably doesn't like Harry Potter either, since he was offered the role of creative consultant and declined.
|
|
|
Omnigeek
Lorien
Feb 16 2016, 2:01am
Post #154 of 174
(766 views)
Shortcut
|
I actually think the LOTR trilogy did pretty good job in adhering to the base material. Yes, they exercised some liberties (in some cases because they just had to in order to translate it to screen) but nowhere near as many or as deep as with TH.
"Ender's Game" was very faithful to the book.
"Master and Commander" combined novels but otherwise was very faithful to the material.
Watching "Gettysburg" was very much like reading "The Killer Angels" (aside from Martin Sheen's pathetic portrayal of Robert E. Lee).
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Feb 16 2016, 2:17am
Post #155 of 174
(763 views)
Shortcut
|
The LotR changes were not nearly as extreme and in your face as were those of the Hobbit. And I never found myself wishing they had decided to make Gimli look a bit more like a dwarf. So minus a few details I would include the LotR in the list as well.
|
|
|
MyWeeLadGimli
Lorien
Feb 16 2016, 4:04am
Post #156 of 174
(753 views)
Shortcut
|
|
LOTR isn't as faithful as everyone says
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Even though the Hobbit films added a ton of stuff, the LOTR films took out huge chunks of story, as well as loads of characters. Tom Bombadil and the Old Forest, Fatty Bolger, Ghan-Buri-Ghan, Halbarad and the Rangers, Beregond, the Scouring of the Shire, etc.
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Feb 16 2016, 4:13am
Post #157 of 174
(748 views)
Shortcut
|
Especially with leaving out The Scouring of the Shire. That was imo one of the most important parts of the story.
|
|
|
Omnigeek
Lorien
Feb 16 2016, 4:23am
Post #158 of 174
(745 views)
Shortcut
|
...it is weird that the Dwarves had so much backstory and character development in theory, but hardly any of that made it into the films. Gloin being a banker, Bifur's toys, Nori on the run from the law, the bit about Dori, Nori, and Ori being only half-brothers, among other things.
My initial response got zapped ... I have to remember to use the basic editor ... <sigh>
Anyway, backstories are a way for the author / actor / director to add flesh to the bones of the story, give it consistency and depth. This is really important for the actors since they are fulfilling someone else's vision but also for an author when telling an epic-scale story.
Jerry Pournelle once said that only about 10% of the material he and Larry Niven create ever makes it into their books. They create songs, poetry, literature, history, cultural icons, customs, languages, planetary systems, geography, climate, etc. to give their races and worlds depth. Then they trim everything away so as not to bore the reader. The result is that they have Moties who act like Moties and Kzin who act like Kzin.
Christopher Tolkien has made a life's work in collating and editing his father's notes that we may better appreciate the magnitude of the world his father created even though most have only encountered it in 3-4 books.
I may not agree with or like the results of what I see but I deeply appreciate the effort the creators and actors took in creating backstories to give their characters life. I further understand why most of it didn't actually make its way into the films. Most people are there to watch a story, not individual biographies or sociological studies.
In any event ...
|
|
|
Cirashala
Valinor
Feb 20 2016, 10:47pm
Post #159 of 174
(713 views)
Shortcut
|
You're missing quite a bit from the BOOKS as well.
Thorin, in the AUJ prologue, had SHORTER hair and LONGER beard (all brown). His beard WAS longer- it was braided several inches in a single braid in the prologue.
During the Quest of Erebor, Thorin's hair is almost twice the length, and his beard is short. There is a BOOK REASON for this (sorta).
In the book, when Smaug took Erebor, Thorin was outside the mountain. Only two dwarves escaped- Thrain and Thror, through the secret door. AND- their beards were singed off due to the dragon fire.
Richard Armitage actually did a LOT of research into the books (even remembering such obscure Tolkien facts that the Nauglamir was originally called the Nauglafring in an early draft of The Silmarillion, but Tolkien later changed it- many of us on HERE, some of us Tolkien experts, would have missed that!).
He noted that the singed beards were a huge blow to a dwarf- who do not tear their beards except in grief. And what could be more grievous than an entire mountain filled with their people destroyed in the span of less than an hour by a huge, fire breathing dragon- and their home and dignity taken at the same time?
So RA came up with this BOOK compromise- he determined that, out of respect for the singed beards of his father and grandfather, he would wear his beard short UNTIL the dragon was dead and the mountain reclaimed. Then, and only then, would he begin to grow it out again like he had in his youth.
As for Fili and Kili, there is an argument to be had there as well. If a child were born with a full waist-length beard, it would strangle them during childbirth (it would wrap around their neck for sure). So PJ went the route of a wispy, shorter beard for childhood (concentrated mostly around the ears and sideburn areas).
Therefore, one could argue that it would be the childhood beard, and upon adulthood the "adult" beard that covers the chin and upper lip as well as the sides begins to grow in.
Dwarves are of age (as in reach adult maturity) at 40 years old. Then then AGE VERY SLOWLY until 240, when the aging process from about 40 human years to 80 human years happens rapidly.
Fili and Kili are 77 and 82, respectively (still too young to marry by dwarf average of 100 years old). Unless you wish for Tolkien dwarves to be bearded and haired Rapunzels a la the Disney Movie "Tangled" with several meters' worth of hair and beard each, one must argue that beard and hair must grow very slowly amongst them.
Both Fili and Kili (well, ALL the dwarves, actually) have a substantial amount of hair in front of the ears/sideburn area- THAT could be the childhood beard growing out (which is much longer on Kili than his facial beard, same with Fili). Kili has only had, in theory, 37 years for his beard to grow (the archer comment is also valid too, since not all archers "kiss the arrow" before shooting but Kili does- I'm an archer and I know that if hair isn't tied back (I couldn't speak for facial hair, as I'm female and only have a bit of fluff on my face) it WILL get caught in the arrows and when it does, it hurts like heck  ).
If hair does grow slowly due to dwarf longevity, then Fili having a bit more beard than Kili makes sense, and both having less beard than the others also makes sense (as the next youngest dwarf in the company still has over 50 years on the two of them).
I think it would be wise for you to actually read more than just The Hobbit, but also the LOTR appendices (pay particular attention to Appendix A, subset Durin's Folk, as it has a lot of info on the dwarves- I've read everything Tolkien has written about dwarves save for what's in History of Middle-earth and History of The Hobbit because I don't yet own those sets), and Tolkien's letters (formally "The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien"). However, I do believe that the beard singeing part IS actually in TH book itself.
Perhaps you should also consider watching ALL of the movie appendices as well before you go off half-cocked spouting what you deem "facts" but are simply opinion without proper research. If you had, perhaps you would have seen the part about Richard Armitage explaining the shorter beard being more IN LINE WITH TOLKIEN than you give it credit for. You may have also seen the part with the stone giants when Ken Stott (Balin) kept having his beard fly into his face every time he tried to say, "This is no thunderstorm. It's a thunder-battle! Look!" You may also see when Kili has thicker makeup and how "thuggish" he looked- like you'd find him on a street corner about to mug someone, or you might also notice that when Aidan Turner grew out his real beard, he looked almost identical to Richard Armitage as Thorin and if you were further than six feet away, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between either of them. You may also realize that Fili's nose is, in fact, quite large compared to Dean O'Gorman's real nose (same with Aidan Turner's- both had nose prosthetics), and you might hear the discussion about how dwarf features get bigger with age (a real phenomenon amongst humans). And Fili's nose is also longer in length (in terms of protrusion from face) than most of the dwarves, even if it is straighter and less bulbous- ALSO in line with the books (Fili had the longest nose in the book).
Oh, by the way- a good term to describe what Dormouse was meaning when he/she said dwarves were like smaller, stockier humans would be humanoid, which, by definition, means:
hu·man·oid /adjective adjective: humanoid- 1. having an appearance or character resembling that of a human. (emphasis mine).
nounnoun: humanoid; plural noun: humanoids- 1. (especially in science fiction) a being resembling a human in its shape.
According to the actual definition of the word humanoid, dwarves would definitely fall into that category. They are sentient, and resemble (note- it says resemble, NOT identical) humans in shape and appearance (ie, as Dormouse said- one head, two arms, two five digit each hands, two legs, two five digit feet, and walk upright).
So in fact, Dormouse wasn't calling them "mini-humans", but rather "humanoid creatures". There is a BIG difference in terminology.
I am not immune to some appearance gripes myself, btw- I can't stand Bombur's balding and "braid-beard" (since Dwalin's head is tattooed, I prefer to think he went "bald" by choice to be more intimidating), and I'm not a huge fan of Nori's "starfish" (but I will note that if you look at them post-barrels out of bond, both Nori's and Dori's beards are, in fact, waist length when wet and down, not braided up).
And Balin was stated IN THE BOOK to be "old looking" to Bilbo, not that he WAS older than Thorin (just LOOKED older). And the argument about the line of Durin also stands- Durin the Deathless lived over 700 (or was it 900?) years before his death (hence the epithet "deathless"). Thorin is his direct descendant. Dwalin is also of the line of Durin (in fact, before Thorin, Fili and Kili died, he was 7th in line for the throne) and lived to the age of 340 (when most dwarves died at about 250). If Thorin hadn't died at the Battle of Five Armies, there's no telling how long he would have lived naturally, with Durin's blood in his veins.
Maybe you should revisit the books (LOTR, TH, and the Sil), the book appendices, Tolkien's letters, HOME and HOTH (if you have them- they're on my wish list), and the film interviews and appendices. Also watch the films frame by frame. I DID THIS ALL as research for my own writing and also out of curiosity to learn everything Tolkien ever wrote about dwarves (and my curiousity of the characterizations for the films). Once you've done that, then we'll talk more about how "Tolkien" or not the dwarves' appearances are 
(This post was edited by Cirashala on Feb 20 2016, 10:54pm)
|
|
|
Cirashala
Valinor
Feb 20 2016, 10:56pm
Post #160 of 174
(711 views)
Shortcut
|
She was 99 when Fili was born 
Hope that helps you with your calculations 
|
|
|
Cirashala
Valinor
Feb 20 2016, 10:57pm
Post #161 of 174
(708 views)
Shortcut
|
you have the dwarves settling in the Blue Mountains the same year as the Quest of Erebor (2941)
|
|
|
Cirashala
Valinor
Feb 20 2016, 11:06pm
Post #162 of 174
(704 views)
Shortcut
|
Hobbits average between 2 and 4 feet tall, according to Tolkien. Dwarves average between 4 and 5 feet tall, and humans are about 6 feet or taller (with the Numenorians/Dunedain much taller). Elves top that list (Galadriel was 6'4", which was a bit tall for an elf lady but not elf men).
Bilbo is approximately 4'2", which is just barely out of the norm of hobbit height (however, he's related to Bullroarer Took, so you could conceivably say that line of hobbits ran tall). The shortest dwarf (Balin) is the same height as Bilbo, so low on the dwarf side but still within that 4'-5' range.
Tolkien actually states that dwarves are much stockier and stronger and wider than hobbits, "even if they aren't much taller". (the in quotes is directly quoted from Tolkien's works- don't remember if that's TH or LOTR, but I remember that part of the line quite clearly in reference to the difference in dwarf vs hobbit height). That's why Bilbo didn't need to be scaled down next to the company in the film.
Dwarf hands- with exception to the shot where AT and EL briefly held hands (during Kili's delirious speech), you can tell that their fingers are much wider than human fingers (in the shot I mention above, the reason for lack of prosthetic was due to the close up making the prosthetic hand look obviously fake).
The other hobbits were, for the most part, shorter than Bilbo (until the ent drought with Merry and Pippin, at least), and Gimli was taller than them but still within the 4'-5' norm (so perhaps he was on the tall side of dwarves, say about the 4'10"-5' range, whereas Balin was on the low end of about 4'2" thus closer to the taller Bilbo's height). That would explain how Balin and Bilbo are the same height, but why Gimli is a head taller than both (you'll notice that Thorin/RA is also a head taller than both Bilbo and Balin, but none of the dwarves are shorter than Bilbo- also that Bilbo's more slender than all of them).
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Feb 20 2016, 11:08pm
Post #163 of 174
(702 views)
Shortcut
|
She was 99 when Fili was born
I know. It was right there in my post. I did use that as a working hypothesis. However, it is only of limited use if the film timeline is different than Tolkien's, as it seems to be.
If we play fast-and-loose we can say that Dis might have married young and had Fili at a younger age.
"Things need not to have happened to be true.
Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure
when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot."
- Dream of the Endless
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Feb 20 2016, 11:23pm)
|
|
|
Cirashala
Valinor
Feb 20 2016, 11:40pm
Post #165 of 174
(688 views)
Shortcut
|
However, the tapestry in Laketown still shows Thorin's birth date to be the same as the books (so in theory, unless there was a HUGE gap between kids, Dis is also presumably the same age she was in the books).
So then the only change from book to film might simply be the time frame of Smaug's attack on Erebor (and the events afterward). In the films, Thorin looks to me to probably be at or just a bit older than Fili is in TH. Maybe that will help as well.
PJ says that it's been sixty years since anone SAW Smaug. I think a lot of people (not you) have taken that (and Old Bilbo to Young Bilbo's "sixty years earlier" and run with the assumption that it had only been sixty years since Smaug attacked Erebor.
I think that is what distorts the storyline the most- that sixty years has been mentioned twice in the films, thus people assumed that it meant since the initial attack.
Thorin being older in the film when the attack happened (and Balin- he looks awfully old for a 7 year old ) also distorts it some- but dwarf aging still allows for many decades between the attack and the quest.
But then again even Tolkien was inconsistent with dates- since he has Gloin shaking a rattle in diapers and still fighting at the Battle of Azanulbizar  (it's true- the Battle was in TA 2799 and Gloin was born in 2783, so while maybe not in diapers per se, he was still only 16 and dwarves weren't battle-ready until 30 at the earliest).
|
|
|
Cirashala
Valinor
Feb 20 2016, 11:53pm
Post #166 of 174
(682 views)
Shortcut
|
To answer your points:
1. Gloin being a banker- (after refusing to contribute to paying Bard): "I have been bled dry by this venture. And what have I seen but naught and grief and misery and...." (DOS on the boat, in both EE and TE).
2. Bifur's toys- Bifur is shown right before the cave floor collapses "flying" a carved eagle toy, and also when Balin says, "Tinkers, toymakers" in AUJ while talking to Thorin, he looks directly at Bifur and Bombur.
3. Nori- in the EE, he obviously steals a salt shaker as well as many other "keepsakes" from Rivendell, and in the TE he tries to abscond with some sausages, but Bofur foils that plot
4. Half-brothers- didn't make it in and I'm glad for it ("Dwarves only marry once, and if they cannot have the one they want they will have no other." Appendix A, LOTR, subset Durin's Folk).
And in response to the person you responded to- Bombur WAS in charge of the food, and it WAS mentioned. "Come on Bombur- we're hungry." by Thorin in AUJ (right before troll scene at the farmhouse after his argument with Gandalf).
Another trait- "Oin, Gloin- get a fire going." (same scene as above).
If you watch the movies very closely (add subtitles at least once- you'd be surprised what your ears don't pick up clearly til you do- in that same scene above, you hear in the background Nori making fun of Dori's cooking skills (to which Gloin says, "True enough!") and Dori finding it less than amusing) you'd be surprised what traits are indeed pointed out, either verbally or through body language- especially if you sometimes focus away from who the camera is focused on and look more to the background acting
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Feb 21 2016, 12:00am
Post #167 of 174
(681 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't think that the tapestry was meant to be authoritative.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The Lake-town tapestry was just included to establish Thorin's bona fides; I don't think we were ever meant to be able to clearly make out the dates on it. Whoever crafted it just copied the years from Tolkien's genealogy (minus any years of death from after the coming of Smaug) and Jackson never gave it any thought. It is an interesting artefact though.
I actually think of all of the birth years on the tapestry as accurate except for those of Thorin and his siblings. If we assume a later coming of Smaug then they mostly seem to work out.
Keep in mind that I was trying to establish what the minimum time could be in the films between the coming of Smaug and the Quest of Erebor without radically altering the birthdates of Fili and Kili (approximately 120 years). Another interpretation would be to assume that the Battle of Moria occurs in 2799 as it does in the legendarium, with Smaug invading Erebor just a few years earlier (perhaps in 2795 for a gap of 145 years).
"Things need not to have happened to be true.
Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure
when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot."
- Dream of the Endless
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Feb 21 2016, 12:12am)
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Feb 21 2016, 3:03pm
Post #168 of 174
(664 views)
Shortcut
|
If we can go back to possible timelines for the films, I had a brief discussion with Cirashala about this.
Assuming that Balin is pretty much the same age he is in the book (citing both his year-of-birth on the Lake-town tapestry and partial confirmation in Jude Fisher's The Hobbit; An Unexpected Journey Visual Companion); and assuming that the age relationships between Balin, Dwalin and Thorin that we get from supporting materials is accurate (Balin as the oldest with Thorin a few years younger than Dwalin) then we might get something like the following:
2763 - Balin is born.
2772 - Dwalin is born.
2776 - Birth of Thorin.
2781 - Frerin is born.
2790 - Dis is born.
2800 - The coming of Smaug to Erebor.
2829 - Battle of Moria Frerin is slain.
2832 - Thorin leads his people to the Blue Mountains. Sometime between 2840 and 2858 Dis weds.
2859 - Fili is born.
2864 - Kili is born.
2939 - Thorin meets Gandalf in Bree.
2940 - The Quest of Erebor; the Battle of Five Armies.
I also retained the bit of book-canon that Dis was 10 years old when Smaug drove Durin's Folk from Erebor. I doubt that you'll like this timeline either as it gives a gap of 140 years between the Coming of Smaug and the Quest of Erebor. What can I say? Thorin has good genes.
"Things need not to have happened to be true.
Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure
when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot."
- Dream of the Endless
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Feb 21 2016, 3:15pm)
|
|
|
Cirashala
Valinor
Feb 21 2016, 4:13pm
Post #169 of 174
(655 views)
Shortcut
|
that Thorin is clearly an adult (so at least 40) when Smaug takes Erebor in the films. You still have him at 24, thus still a child. The latest he would have been born in that case would be 2760, not 2776, in order to keep him an adult during Smaug's attack like in the films.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Feb 21 2016, 4:22pm
Post #170 of 174
(653 views)
Shortcut
|
...Thorin is clearly an adult (so at least 40) when Smaug takes Erebor in the films. You still have him at 24, thus still a child.
That was Tolkien's doing, but if you want to make the coming of Smaug another ten years later or more then feel free. I (somewhat arbitrarily) wanted to keep Dis at ten years old when the dragon comes and also wanted to keep her age consistent with the ages of her brothers. But Smaug could very easily invade Erebor as late as TA 2820, which would work better visually. Revised:
2763 - Balin is born.
2772 - Dwalin is born.
2776 - Birth of Thorin.
2781 - Frerin is born.
2790 - Dis is born.
2820 - The coming of Smaug to Erebor.
2829 - Battle of Moria Frerin is slain.
2832 - Thorin leads his people to the Blue Mountains. Sometime between 2840 and 2858 Dis weds.
2859 - Fili is born.
2864 - Kili is born.
2939 - Thorin meets Gandalf in Bree.
2940 - The Quest of Erebor; the Battle of Five Armies.
"Things need not to have happened to be true.
Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure
when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot."
- Dream of the Endless
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Feb 21 2016, 4:35pm)
|
|
|
Omnigeek
Lorien
Feb 21 2016, 7:01pm
Post #171 of 174
(637 views)
Shortcut
|
|
We can't get by without a good rationalization
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
You're missing quite a bit from the BOOKS as well.
Thorin, in the AUJ prologue, had SHORTER hair and LONGER beard (all brown). His beard WAS longer- it was braided several inches in a single braid in the prologue.
During the Quest of Erebor, Thorin's hair is almost twice the length, and his beard is short. There is a BOOK REASON for this (sorta).
In the book, when Smaug took Erebor, Thorin was outside the mountain. Only two dwarves escaped- Thrain and Thror, through the secret door. AND- their beards were singed off due to the dragon fire.
Richard Armitage actually did a LOT of research into the books (even remembering such obscure Tolkien facts that the Nauglamir was originally called the Nauglafring in an early draft of The Silmarillion, but Tolkien later changed it- many of us on HERE, some of us Tolkien experts, would have missed that!). I'm glad he did research but ...
He noted that the singed beards were a huge blow to a dwarf- who do not tear their beards except in grief. And what could be more grievous than an entire mountain filled with their people destroyed in the span of less than an hour by a huge, fire breathing dragon- and their home and dignity taken at the same time?
So RA came up with this BOOK compromise- he determined that, out of respect for the singed beards of his father and grandfather, he would wear his beard short UNTIL the dragon was dead and the mountain reclaimed. Then, and only then, would he begin to grow it out again like he had in his youth.
... nothing like a good rationalization, eh? This would be a good one IF the text didn't already specify Thorin's beard as being so long the Elves teased him about watering it when he crossed the river into Imladris.
I would actually be happier if they just admitted they wanted a certain artistic look despite what the book said rather than making up bogus reasons why it fits. In the end, this is the contrapositive to Elendil, Isildur, and Aragorn having facial hair in LOTR when Numenoreans didn't have facial hair due to their partial Elven heritage. (At least with Aragorn, one can argue that bit of genetic heritage might have been watered down by his generation since Tolkien didn't specifically say anything about his beard or lack thereof.) PJ and company LIKE short scruffy beards so that's what they used on so many actors.
As for Fili and Kili, there is an argument to be had there as well. If a child were born with a full waist-length beard, it would strangle them during childbirth (it would wrap around their neck for sure). So PJ went the route of a wispy, shorter beard for childhood (concentrated mostly around the ears and sideburn areas). Therefore, one could argue that it would be the childhood beard, and upon adulthood the "adult" beard that covers the chin and upper lip as well as the sides begins to grow in. Dwarves are of age (as in reach adult maturity) at 40 years old. Then then AGE VERY SLOWLY until 240, when the aging process from about 40 human years to 80 human years happens rapidly. Fili and Kili are 77 and 82, respectively (still too young to marry by dwarf average of 100 years old). Unless you wish for Tolkien dwarves to be bearded and haired Rapunzels a la the Disney Movie "Tangled" with several meters' worth of hair and beard each, one must argue that beard and hair must grow very slowly amongst them. Both Fili and Kili (well, ALL the dwarves, actually) have a substantial amount of hair in front of the ears/sideburn area- THAT could be the childhood beard growing out (which is much longer on Kili than his facial beard, same with Fili). Kili has only had, in theory, 37 years for his beard to grow (the archer comment is also valid too, since not all archers "kiss the arrow" before shooting but Kili does- I'm an archer and I know that if hair isn't tied back (I couldn't speak for facial hair, as I'm female and only have a bit of fluff on my face) it WILL get caught in the arrows and when it does, it hurts like heck ).
I know a few bowhunters with decent beards (not quite ZZ Top) that don't seem to have issues. OTOH, this is a reason for dwarves to plait their beards or tuck them in their belts ... but they have beards, not scruff!
If hair does grow slowly due to dwarf longevity, then Fili having a bit more beard than Kili makes sense, and both having less beard than the others also makes sense (as the next youngest dwarf in the company still has over 50 years on the two of them).
I think it would be wise for you to actually read more than just The Hobbit, but also the LOTR appendices (pay particular attention to Appendix A, subset Durin's Folk, as it has a lot of info on the dwarves- I've read everything Tolkien has written about dwarves save for what's in History of Middle-earth and History of The Hobbit because I don't yet own those sets), and Tolkien's letters (formally "The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien"). However, I do believe that the beard singeing part IS actually in TH book itself.
It is. "“The few of us that were well outside sat and wept in hiding, and cursed Smaug; and there we were unexpectedly joined by my father and my grandfather with singed beards. They looked very grim but they said very little.”"
However, singed doesn't mean burned off. Usually, singeing is charring at the edges. Again, I wish people would just admit it was an artistic decision and leave it at that instead of making up bogus garbage to explain it. They didn't have to make the Company look like refugees from "Time Bandits" to make them recognizable and distinctive -- I can tell each soldier in "The Dirty Dozen" or "Kelly's Heroes" apart despite them having identical (not just similar) costumes. I can tell individual Elves in Rivendell or Lothlorien apart in LOTR.
There are a lot of people who try to make up reasons why the "dwarf" looks in TH are okay like noting there are 6 other houses which could have different looks. Interesting rationalization as long as people understand it's THEIR rationalization and not actually supported by any of the texts. For that matter, the prologue to FOTR shows all seven Dwarf Lords with ... LONG BEARDS (and none of them wearing pimp fur either -- just had to get that in since some people are so offended by my reference to Thorin's costume )!
At the end of the day, these are someone else's vision and they are very good movies if (IMHO) mediocre adaptations of Tolkien's work.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Feb 21 2016, 7:39pm
Post #172 of 174
(625 views)
Shortcut
|
I just realized, with that last revision we are back to the coming of Smaug being 120 years before the Quest of Erebor. It's like a magic number and seems to lead to a fairly solid, internally consistent timeline for the films (if we ignore the anomaly of Thorin and his siblings' birth-years on the tapestry).
"Things need not to have happened to be true.
Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure
when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot."
- Dream of the Endless
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Feb 21 2016, 7:43pm)
|
|
|
Omnigeek
Lorien
Feb 21 2016, 7:55pm
Post #173 of 174
(619 views)
Shortcut
|
|
That's actually easy enough to explain
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I just realized, with that last revision we are back to the coming of Smaug being 120 years before the Quest of Erebor. It's like a magic number and seems to lead to a fairly solid, internally consistent timeline for the films (if we ignore the anomaly of Thorin and his siblings' birth-years on the tapestry).
Who's to say the Men of Dale got the birth years right on that tapestry? They could have got their information wrong when they wove it or it could be an incorrect copy made after Smaug burned Dale from someone's fading memory. (Doesn't explain why it's consistent with the book but it is entirely plausible for the movie universe.)
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Feb 21 2016, 8:33pm
Post #174 of 174
(615 views)
Shortcut
|
Well, we don't know who was supposed to have crafted the tapestry, but we can certainly suppose that those years were somehow garbled when it was woven. Maybe the other dates all had solid documentation, but the birth years for Thorin, Frerin and Dis were all from someone's imperfect memory (as you surmise).
"Things need not to have happened to be true.
Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure
when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot."
- Dream of the Endless
|
|
|
|
|
