Our Sponsor Sideshow Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
In The End
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All

Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Jun 1 2016, 1:14am

Post #76 of 117 (1062 views)
Shortcut
Seriously? Still the Beards [In reply to] Can't Post

Okay, if this will make you happy - yes, Kili's stubble is something of a deviation from the text - and I STILL DON'T CARE, it's such a trivial detail that I can't believe ANYONE could possibly get this bent out of shape about it. In fact, the more you go on about it the LESS I care about it. Dormouse said "it looks like a beard to me," that means it looks like a beard to her, NOT anything about "no deviation from the text" to be found, only an honest opinion. You seem to be confusing honest opinions like "looks like a beard to me" and "I really don't care how long the beards are" as a denial of deviation from the text, when it isn't. But obviously this is a very big deal to you, okay, fine, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Just PLEASE don't continue to put words in my mouth about "denial of deviation" or whatever you think I'm doing.

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


LittleHobbit
Lorien

Jun 1 2016, 11:21am

Post #77 of 117 (1031 views)
Shortcut
Dormouse is a woman? [In reply to] Can't Post

I always thought it was a guy writing.............. Crazy

I am a guy, by the way!!! lol


(This post was edited by LittleHobbit on Jun 1 2016, 11:22am)


Noria
Gondor

Jun 1 2016, 12:07pm

Post #78 of 117 (1018 views)
Shortcut
What Kili said. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Okay, if this will make you happy - yes, Kili's stubble is something of a deviation from the text - and I STILL DON'T CARE, it's such a trivial detail that I can't believe ANYONE could possibly get this bent out of shape about it. In fact, the more you go on about it the LESS I care about it. Dormouse said "it looks like a beard to me," that means it looks like a beard to her, NOT anything about "no deviation from the text" to be found, only an honest opinion. You seem to be confusing honest opinions like "looks like a beard to me" and "I really don't care how long the beards are" as a denial of deviation from the text, when it isn't. But obviously this is a very big deal to you, okay, fine, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Just PLEASE don't continue to put words in my mouth about "denial of deviation" or whatever you think I'm doing.


Unfortunately, I’m now finding myself less inclined to give serious attention to any of the views of the “no-beard” contingent, because if they are so focused on one trivial detail, they seemingly aren’t considering the big picture.

Thanks for this discussion people because previously I had not given much thought to Dwarf beards in TH. I've come to realize that I love every Dwarf's facial hair, including Kili's whiskers, Bombur's sideburns and Thorin's short beard.


LittleHobbit
Lorien

Jun 1 2016, 2:49pm

Post #79 of 117 (1010 views)
Shortcut
Not to mention... [In reply to] Can't Post

That I seem to recall that the 13 dwarves looked differently because PJ and crew were aiming for each to have a distinct look, so audiences could tell which is which. That's why the cloathing, hair, personality and -- guess what -- their BEARDS look different. As opposed to the book, where you can barely tell each dwarf because in addition to having no distinct personalities, they also share far too similar names. At least in the movie you have a couple extra dwarves who stand out more (although this problem still somewhat remains in the film version -- but then again, it's THIRTEEN dwarves we are talking about here).

So again it's a matter of what works in a visual medium vs. what works in a book.

But I would never expect a book purist to actually understand this concept. Frown


(This post was edited by LittleHobbit on Jun 1 2016, 3:00pm)


dormouse
Half-elven


Jun 1 2016, 3:53pm

Post #80 of 117 (1005 views)
Shortcut
Yep.... [In reply to] Can't Post

Female mouse Smile

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


KW
Rivendell

Jun 1 2016, 5:31pm

Post #81 of 117 (992 views)
Shortcut
Actually, when it comes to "what works in a visual medium" [In reply to] Can't Post

it is a fairly standard approach in visual design and composition that when working with a large group to treat that group as a single mass and then subordinate and eliminated extraneous individual details, not unlike Tolkien's approach in the book.


Starling
Half-elven


Jun 1 2016, 6:20pm

Post #82 of 117 (986 views)
Shortcut
It's those delicate features [In reply to] Can't Post

emerging from the teapot that give you away. Angelic




dormouse
Half-elven


Jun 1 2016, 6:23pm

Post #83 of 117 (985 views)
Shortcut
Only because.... [In reply to] Can't Post

..you can't see the fluffy pink slippers and the hair ribbon on the tail! Wink

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


malickfan
Gondor


Jun 1 2016, 9:00pm

Post #84 of 117 (972 views)
Shortcut
Honestly... [In reply to] Can't Post

...largely indifferent, maybe swinging more towards the annoyed end of the spectrum.

There's quite alot I like, a little I love, and quite alot more I dislike intensely in this trilogy (I still dislike that's it's a a trilogy, 2 3 hour films would have been better i.m.o).

I suppose I was fulfilled to some degree-the films were entertaining on some level, with alot to like about the cast, set pieces and production design, and even with the stuff I hated at least I got a few chuckles/opinions debating about them online, I'd probably sit down and watch them again if I caught them on television.

But ultimately I found the trilogy to be bloated and confused as a cinematic story, incredibly annoying (at times) as an adaptation, and disappointing as a follow up to LOTR. I watched The Battle Of The Five Armies once, and I have no pressing desire to watch it ever again for the foreseeable future...honestly I found it kinda boring.

Fairly fun, but deeply flawed i.m.o 6/10?

Unimpressed








Omnigeek
Lorien


Jun 2 2016, 4:12am

Post #85 of 117 (954 views)
Shortcut
Because I couldn't tell the difference in other movies [In reply to] Can't Post

Wow, never realized I couldn't tell the difference between the cast in "Saving Private Ryan", "Crimson Tide", "The Longest Day", "Star Trek", "The Dirty Dozen", or "Magnificent Seven". I mean, wow, everyone dressed the same and almost NONE of them had a beard! Gosh, why didn't they have someone with a Duck Dynasty beard or hair down past his shoulders in "Crimson Tide" so I could tell who was who? I mean, it's not like different personalities or skills would have helped me pick them out visually ...

Okay, a bit snide but the point is, your idea of having to do this because "it's a visual medium" is false as has been demonstrated by hundreds of Westerns and war movies and pretty much any other film using a large cast with uniforms.

I and others have said repeatedly that the beards are really a small point, one that doesn't affect the plot or story itself. I think most of us who don't think this was a grand glorious set of films are more disturbed by things like the Kili-Tauriel-Legolas triangle (or even the Kili-Tauriel duo at all), the unnecessary Azog plot, unnecessary gore in the battle scenes, and changes to the storyline that some of us perceive as diminishing the focus on Bilbo. On the other hand, it's a small point that illustrates how the films deviate from the book on even small points; they were so involved in making their own artistic vision they couldn't even bother to make dwarves look like dwarves.


Starling
Half-elven


Jun 2 2016, 5:55am

Post #86 of 117 (948 views)
Shortcut
You should show your accessories off [In reply to] Can't Post

They will look lovely against your new settee...


It's amazing how much furniture you can fit into a teapot.




dormouse
Half-elven


Jun 2 2016, 7:47am

Post #87 of 117 (939 views)
Shortcut
It is rather fetching, isn't it... [In reply to] Can't Post

..and very snug..

But how did you sneak the camera in? *Peers dubiously up the spout*

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Jun 2 2016, 3:34pm

Post #88 of 117 (918 views)
Shortcut
Here we must agree to disagree [In reply to] Can't Post

"your idea of having to do this because "it's a visual medium" is false as has been demonstrated by hundreds of Westerns and war movies and pretty much any other film using a large cast with uniforms."


Well of course I'd expect army soldiers to DRESS alike, but not look identical. Note the Iron Hills Dwarves all looked indistinguishable (of course, they were also made up of the same six guys being replicated by CGI). But the Company of Thorin Oakenshield was NOT an army, but rather 13 individuals that volunteered for the Quest, so of course they would not look identical.


As for "Star Trek," well you have the main cast, and then all the other crewmen are essentially extras, so not only is there no point in differentiating but attempting to do so would be distracting (even for a show that's supposed to feature the occasional weird-looking alien). On the other hand, in "The Hobbit" a decision was made to (at least initially) NOT treat the 13 Dwarves like background scenery, but to make each one distinctive. Well, that's the producer's and director's decision, you don't have to approve, but they were hardly "wrong" for wanting to structure their movie that way. That decision has a fair number of supporters on this site.


"On the other hand, it's a small point that illustrates how the films deviate from the book on even small points; they were so involved in making their own artistic vision they couldn't even bother to make dwarves look like dwarves."


Again, as I've said before, I don't really care very much about the beard length, and they looked like "Dwarves" to me. Bit more involved in looking "Dwarvish" than mere beard length, anyway - that would mostly be the scale, and I think they did a fine job making 6'2" Richard and 6'3" Graham look like short, stocky dwarves. This is, of course only my opinion, although I believe many others share that same opinion. And please excuse my impertinence, but the constant harping on beard length, which you yourself admit is really a small point in the movies, is getting rather tiresome. You are naturally entitled to your opinion, which you've expressed many times here, but perhaps we could move on?

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


lionoferebor
Rohan


Jun 2 2016, 4:48pm

Post #89 of 117 (908 views)
Shortcut
Well... [In reply to] Can't Post

In the end, there are bits and pieces of these films that have left me fulfilled, but overall I am bewildered and somewhat disappointed. I hoped with time - and each EE - I'd come to peace with these films, and while I could say I have...truth is I have more so settled than anything else. Maybe 5, 10 years from now I'll be able to watch these films beginning to end without the relentless urge to fast forward through one-third or more of the material. Until then I will bypass the parts I don't like (no beards are not one) and watch and enjoy the parts that I do.


wizzardly
Rohan


Jun 2 2016, 11:32pm

Post #90 of 117 (881 views)
Shortcut
exactly [In reply to] Can't Post

PJ's decision to have some of his dwarves go beardless, though it may be a non issue to most people here, to fans of Tolkien like myself, I see it as a sort of statement of defiance on the part of the filmmakers to show even the slightest amount of respect towards the original source material. If I had to choose between beardless dwarves and the awful awful love story I would have to say I would take the beardless dwarves however grudgingly. But for me, every time a beardless dwarf is on screen, it's a continual reminder that PJ really didn't give a hoot about adapting a classic work of literature.


ange1e4e5
Gondor

Jun 3 2016, 1:29am

Post #91 of 117 (856 views)
Shortcut
In Kili's case, it was partly pragmatism, because [In reply to] Can't Post

He was already the designated archer and it's too much of a risk getting the beard tangled with the bowstring.

Anyway, depends on whether or not they have "beards" as well as beards.

I always follow my job through.

(This post was edited by ange1e4e5 on Jun 3 2016, 1:30am)


Noria
Gondor

Jun 3 2016, 1:02pm

Post #92 of 117 (818 views)
Shortcut
Disrespect? [In reply to] Can't Post

Having listened to the commentaries for the LotR and Hobbit movies several times, I never got the impression that PJ, Boyens et al have anything but respect for Tolkien and affection for the books. They do say that some elements of the books would not translate to the screen very well and that is why most of the actual changes were made in creating these adaptations. The additions were made to flesh out the stories and characters, particularly in TH. Nobody has to agree with them (I don’t always) but disrespect doesn’t come into it.

PJ and company chose to vary the looks of the Dwarves, including the beards, for cinematic reasons. It was their way of dealing with a group of similar characters, the specific number iconic to the book, who were not going to be equally developed as characters. In their adaptation they could have just eliminated, say, everyone but Thorin, Fili, Kili, Balin and Dwalin. They chose instead to make the rest distinctive visually and give them some small character moments, Bofur being more developed. In my opinion thirteen Gimlis (or any other type) with thirteen long flowing beards would indeed be visually uninteresting and confusing but I like that all the members of the Company of Thorin Oakenshield were included.

Incidentally, since the Tolkien fan card keeps getting trotted out, mine says that I have loved these books for close to fifty years and have reread each many, many times.


dormouse
Half-elven


Jun 3 2016, 2:07pm

Post #93 of 117 (816 views)
Shortcut
Whereas, to fans of Tolkien like myself (fifty years plus)... [In reply to] Can't Post

...from first to last the respect shown for Tolkien and his writing by Peter Jackson and all the people who've worked with him on the adaptation and design of these films has helped me to accept changes from book to screen which I personally wouldn't have made. They've always gone to great lengths to capture underlying themes from the immediate stories and to respresent the depths of background history and culture that make Tolkien's books so special. They've never shown any defiance and as for not giving a hoot, I'm wondering if you've ever listened to the EE documentaries for both sets of films. The people who speak on them often express a sense of responsibility towards books which they know have been loved by generations of readers.

Of course that doesn't mean that you or I or anyone else will always agree with the decisions they've made in adapting the books. I don't like everything they've done. For goodness sake, it's not as if lovers of the books are always in total agreement, is it? If they had started the business of adapting the books by conducting an open consultation on what aspects of the stories really mattered to existing book fans they'd still be chewing their pencils in despair if they hadn't given up and walked away long ago! But it is possible to disagree with someone else's interpretation - theirs or anyone's - without completely trashing the motives, integrity and decency of the person behind it. You like the Rankin Bass cartoon. I think it's a hideous travesty which completely misses everything that matters to me in the original book - but I'm sure the people who made it were honest, decent filmmakers who produced the best film they could of the story as they saw it. Just doesn't suit me, that's all, and why should it - it's their interpretation, not mine.

Fact is that while you, as a Tolkien fan, keep raising this same point, time and again, I, as a Tolkien fan, delight in all the unexpected glimpses of Tolkien that I see in the Hobbit films - far more than I expected. Reminders of Cuivienen and Doriath, of Maedhros's captivity and Hurin's, of Aredhel and Andreth - and they come as bonus on top of the story itself. Just goes to show we're all different.

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


Jun 3 2016, 3:04pm

Post #94 of 117 (800 views)
Shortcut
THANK YOU [In reply to] Can't Post

The both of you. You have said many things I have tried to say time and time again, except I did it with less patience and somehow far, far more words.

"Even if everyone is telling you that something wrong is something right... even if the whole world is telling you to move, it is your duty to plant yourself like a tree, look them in the eye and say, 'No, YOU move.'"
- Captain America: Civil War


weathertop
Rohan


Jun 3 2016, 3:11pm

Post #95 of 117 (808 views)
Shortcut
it still pains me that noone gives any consideration [In reply to] Can't Post

to WHY Fili/Kili/Thorin might not have long flowing beards.

so there's been a crap-ton of arguing about the length of beards, particularly Fili/Kili/Thorin. I don' t think i've seen anyone complain specifically about Dori/Ori/Nori having less than chest-length beards, so I'm going to focus on what others have been focused on. the Royal family.

Kili & Fili were the youngest of the group by far, Kili the youngest. Might it not be possible that in order to AID the feeling of their relative youth, that they might not have full beards? AND might it not be possible that Thorin as the prince might be required to keep his beard trimmed to a particular length? there is precedent of certain cultures dictating when/how long you may grow your beard.

now; lets move on to wider and greener pastures.

Enginerd

(This post was edited by weathertop on Jun 3 2016, 3:12pm)


dernwyn
Forum Admin / Moderator


Jun 3 2016, 4:09pm

Post #96 of 117 (793 views)
Shortcut
According to [In reply to] Can't Post

Richard Armitage, Tolkien wrote that when Erebor was sacked by the Dragon, the surviving dwarves "tore their beards". So Thorin, out of respect for his kin and still mourning their loss, kept his beard short. Once he regained their kingdom, he would let it grow again.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"I desired dragons with a profound desire"


weathertop
Rohan


Jun 3 2016, 5:12pm

Post #97 of 117 (787 views)
Shortcut
this! [In reply to] Can't Post

is exactly what i meant. just been a while and had forgotten the details & didnt want to muddy the waters further with inaccurate facts

Enginerd


wizzardly
Rohan


Jun 3 2016, 6:05pm

Post #98 of 117 (778 views)
Shortcut
My respect and affection to Tolkien's works [In reply to] Can't Post

extends to Christopher as well, and it is well known that he does not approve of PJ's handling of his fathers work.

And yes as far as adaptations go, I prefer the Rankin/Bass version over PJ's. True there are some visual elements I might have done differently, but overall I feel it captures the heart and spirit of the book far better than PJ's movies do. What important elements of the book do you feel the Rankin/Bass adaptation failed to capture, and that PJ's did? Of course I know we're not talking about how things "look"...because lets be honest here, vaguely frog-like wood elves is sort of in the same category as beardless dwarves, no?


ange1e4e5
Gondor

Jun 3 2016, 6:06pm

Post #99 of 117 (773 views)
Shortcut
They're not completely beardless, you know. [In reply to] Can't Post

And we're talking about a species change here with the Wood-Elves.

And more than half the company getting killed off offscreen (like Bombur) didn't sit well, kinda of "oh look, they're dead".

I always follow my job through.

(This post was edited by ange1e4e5 on Jun 3 2016, 6:08pm)


wizzardly
Rohan


Jun 3 2016, 6:11pm

Post #100 of 117 (766 views)
Shortcut
Maybe they all had genetic beard growth disorders [In reply to] Can't Post

Because all throughout the trilogy Kili's beard never grows. So either that, or he was sneakily grooming when nobody was paying attention.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.