|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
boldog
Rohan
May 7 2013, 10:37am
Post #1 of 19
(826 views)
Shortcut
|
|
bain son of bard
|
Can't Post
|
|
john bell has been cast as bain the son of bard, as a child. what role could he possibly have in the story? john bell stated in an interview that he is trying to help his dad and looks after him at any cost. its kind of cute if you tell me. I was thinking that maybe this bain, might have some relation with Bilbo, just like pippin did in minas tirith with bergil............. anyway what are your thoughts on his role...
"fingolfin looked up in grief to see what evil morgoth had done to maedhros"
|
|
|
malickfan
Gondor
May 7 2013, 3:25pm
Post #2 of 19
(437 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I have been wondering exactly that, the casting of him as Bain has been on Wikipedia for ages, my (Ranting) thoughts
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'm in two minds about this...given how Bard more or less turns up soley to kill the dragon in the book, I can understand how they want to give him more of a character arc and I guess in some ways its suggested by the book (As Bard's grandson is killed in the seige of the lonely mountain T.A 3019 80 years after the hobbit his father was possibly alive around the same time as Bilbo's visit) Pippin and Bergeon's son was one of my fvaourite parts of the book of ROTK and it does fit with Bilbo being a fish out of water...
But at the same time I'm getting increasingily annoyed at PJ and Co seizing on the vaguest of largely irrevelevant plot notes in the appendices (Or in the case of the Blue Wizards, Virtually everything about Radagast, Gandalf's fears about Smaug falling under Sauron's domnion, and Gandalf's fireside Conversation with Bilbo in Bag End, *Don't have the Screen Rights* Unfinished Tales) or lifting stuff ffrom LOTR as an excuse to rewrite the book-The Hobbit for me has always been a SEPERATE children's story-If Tolkien felt it was that important to rewrite it he would have done it (And certainly dropped the talking purse from the 1960's rewrite...) and I'm getting rather tired of PJ suggesting (IMO) he is finishing Tolkien's work on the rewrite, if you ask me all these addtions and sub plots are damaging the book
If every note and subplot is expanded or rewritten out of proportion then where is the fun in imagining the book for ourselves?, and how are new readers meant to appreciate the story for what it is-a virtually unnconected prelude to LOTR set in a conceptually different world, not a what the movies are making it seem like a LOTR prequel.
...That makes me seem a great deal angrier than I intended but I really needed to get that off my chest...
as an excuse to rewrite the book
‘As they came to the gates Cirdan the Shipwright came forth to greet them. Very tall he was, and his beard was long, and we was grey and old, save that his eyes were keen as stars; and he looked at them and bowed, and said ‘All is now ready.’
Perhaps the most fascinating Individual in Middle Earth
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 7 2013, 5:49pm
Post #3 of 19
(383 views)
Shortcut
|
How can anything they do in the film actually damage the book?
I can see that by adding characters and sub-plots the run the risk of damaging the film, or of producing a film that no one will like because it's moved too far from The Hobbit, or become too rambling and complicated or... whatever. But the book goes on just as ever it was, and readers can carry on imagining it just as they want to. We already do - for you it's 'a virtually unconnected prelude set in a conceptually different world', for me it is and always has been a childlike retelling of Bilbo's story, intimately connected with Lord of the Rings and explaining much that happens in it, and set in precisely the same world. You're not wrong, I'm not wrong, we engage with the book in our different ways and that's the joy of books. The film can never take that away. For me the cartoon Hobbit is a hideous travesty, but it didn't ruin the book for me or make me see the Elves as withered up froggy things. I just ignore it and the book goes on.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
May 8 2013, 12:26am
Post #4 of 19
(363 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I am thinking that Bard may be a widower in the film
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The possible death of Bard's wife may have altered his relationship to the Master and the Elders of Esgaroth in the film(s). I always had the impression from the book that Bard did not marry or sire Bain until after he became King Bard of Dale. Here, he seems not to be part of the town's regular militia, but almost (if not in fact) an outlaw.
I think that Bain probably will establish a friendship with Bilbo and that we will know more about Bard through his son. And, yes, this might be inspired by Pippin's friendship with Bergil of Gondor.
'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring
|
|
|
Eleniel
Tol Eressea
May 8 2013, 6:51am
Post #5 of 19
(301 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Perhaps from the example given
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
by Sinister71 in his post here
One of my nephews is a prime example of hating the book after seeing Jackson's film first. He read it after seeing the Hobbit AUJ, upon reading it he wanted to know where Azog was or Radagast. When I informed him that Neither were characters in the book he thought that the "book sucked" and "wasn't like the movie at all"...
That, to me, is worrying...instead of people loving the LotR films and going on to become fans of the book, we may get the opposite this time when people go back to the book after seeing the TH films...
"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
¯ Victoria Monfort
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
May 8 2013, 6:57am
Post #6 of 19
(293 views)
Shortcut
|
... we had that with LotR as well.
I cannot remember how often I read or heard "cool movies but the books are so boring - he never stops describing the landscape" etc etc.
“A dragon is no idle fancy. Whatever may be his origins, in fact or invention, the dragon in legend is a potent creation of men’s imagination, richer in significance than his barrow is in gold.” J.R.R. Tolkien
Words of wisdom that should be remembered - both by critics, purists and anyone in between.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 8 2013, 7:59am
Post #7 of 19
(306 views)
Shortcut
|
... whether a boy who wanted Azog and Radagast as portrayed in the film would have picked up the book and attempted to read it at all if the film had not been made. Or, more to the point, would he have enjoyed the book? The film hasn't changed the book, and you can't blame Peter Jackson for the fact that not everyone likes Tolkien's books.
There is another way of looking at it. It may be that what The Hobbit film does, for Sinister71's nephew or any other kid who reacts in this way, is to open the story to people who, for whatever reason, wouldn't read or enjoy the book. And just because right now they respond to the film and think 'the book sucks', it doesn't mean that that's how they'll always feel. One day they might just pick up the book and really enjoy it, because minds and tastes change over the years.
Besides, you write as though the LotR films were so close to the book that they only had the effect of encouraging readers but that isn't so. Some enjoyed the films but found the books boring and some who loved the books hated and still hate the films. Just the same. Some people don't read. Some readers don't have the patience for Tolkien's books and some don't like them. Is it so wrong to present them with a version of the story that they do like? It might just plant a seed that will bear fruit some day, somehow. And if it doesn't, where's the harm?
A film cannot damage a book, because the book will always be there, for those who want to read it.
|
|
|
emre43
Rohan
May 8 2013, 8:10am
Post #8 of 19
(287 views)
Shortcut
|
... whether a boy who wanted Azog and Radagast as portrayed in the film would have picked up the book and attempted to read it at all if the film had not been made. Or, more to the point, would he have enjoyed the book? The film hasn't changed the book, and you can't blame Peter Jackson for the fact that not everyone likes Tolkien's books.
There is another way of looking at it. It may be that what The Hobbit film does, for Sinister71's nephew or any other kid who reacts in this way, is to open the story to people who, for whatever reason, wouldn't read or enjoy the book. And just because right now they respond to the film and think 'the book sucks', it doesn't mean that that's how they'll always feel. One day they might just pick up the book and really enjoy it, because minds and tastes change over the years.
Besides, you write as though the LotR films were so close to the book that they only had the effect of encouraging readers but that isn't so. Some enjoyed the films but found the books boring and some who loved the books hated and still hate the films. Just the same. Some people don't read. Some readers don't have the patience for Tolkien's books and some don't like them. Is it so wrong to present them with a version of the story that they do like? It might just plant a seed that will bear fruit some day, somehow. And if it doesn't, where's the harm?
A film cannot damage a book, because the book will always be there, for those who want to read it.
I concur.
If somebody prefers the film over the book why should that be browbeaten out of them by people who prefer the book over the film? In all honesty, why does it matter? If the film makes them happy, let them be happy. We spend too much time spreading resentment. Can't we all just respect other people and get on with each other instead of picking up on each other's differences? Personally, I prefer the films to the books, I'm going to get slaughtered for saying that, but I am not afraid of saying it.
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
May 8 2013, 8:18am
Post #9 of 19
(284 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You definatly shall not get slaughtered for that.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
We are too nice here ;)
No, seriously, views like that only contribute to a community.
Tolkien has sometimes an almost saint-like standing among his followers that can make discussion really hard or/and one-sided (for some, this is also true when it comes to PJ, though not the same extent). But of course, liking a movie based on a book better than the actual book is always a valid opinion. As well as the other way round.
“A dragon is no idle fancy. Whatever may be his origins, in fact or invention, the dragon in legend is a potent creation of men’s imagination, richer in significance than his barrow is in gold.” J.R.R. Tolkien
Words of wisdom that should be remembered - both by critics, purists and anyone in between.
|
|
|
innoce77
Registered User
May 8 2013, 11:35am
Post #10 of 19
(295 views)
Shortcut
|
They are beefing up Bard character. I heard Casting director said "Bard is a romantic lead in Film 2,3' ...so with Bain and love interest and all that Smaugh.. Interesting to see how all these turn out.
|
|
|
Na Vedui
Rohan
May 9 2013, 12:04am
Post #11 of 19
(287 views)
Shortcut
|
Did they just mean romantic as in "someone additional for watchers of the films to swoon over", or romantic as in "has a romance in the story" ? If it's the latter, unless they have another female character under wraps, poor old Tauriel will have her work cut out coping with him *and* Kili ; no wonder she sounds a tad aggressive !
|
|
|
innoce77
Registered User
May 9 2013, 2:49am
Post #12 of 19
(266 views)
Shortcut
|
she said 'Bard was the hardest character to cast because he is a human, a family man and a conventional romantic lead in Film 2,3. The romance speculation between Tauriel and kili is overrated. I guess It's just Killi's crush on Tauriel. I don't see any other female characters for Bard to fall in love with besides Tauriel. I think during the battle between Smaug and laketown people, bain will play an important role.
(This post was edited by innoce77 on May 9 2013, 2:49am)
|
|
|
Kimtc
Rohan
May 9 2013, 3:56am
Post #13 of 19
(258 views)
Shortcut
|
|
They need to have an Aragorn for each film
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
With LOTR they had Aragorn for all three, looking great and acting reluctantly heroic while effortlessly knocking off orcs and uruks. In AUJ they were hampered by the lack of humans, and so semi-heroic and not-book-jerk-like Thorin held the Aragorn role (with Kili in the Legolas eye-candy part).
Cut to DoS and TABA and we get humans (and a real Legolas), which conveniently include a heroic character who can look great and act reluctantly heroic while effortlessly knocking off a dragon, orcs and goblins. I even see the same general griminess or Aragorn's wardrobe in Bard's. So I'm not surprised they pumped up his character by adding a son (although I am cynical enough to think that Bain will end up as an EE only character, because swoony guys are generally unencumbered by children).
As for Tauriel, she's going to be the bachelorette in the ME version of "The Dating Game," with Kili, Bard and Thranduil in the chairs behind the wall (apologies to you toddlers who won't get that reference).
Did they just mean romantic as in "someone additional for watchers of the films to swoon over", or romantic as in "has a romance in the story" ? If it's the latter, unless they have another female character under wraps, poor old Tauriel will have her work cut out coping with him *and* Kili ; no wonder she sounds a tad aggressive !
|
|
|
Na Vedui
Rohan
May 9 2013, 10:24am
Post #14 of 19
(259 views)
Shortcut
|
"As for Tauriel, she's going to be the bachelorette in the ME version of "The Dating Game," with Kili, Bard and Thranduil in the chairs behind the wall (apologies to you toddlers who won't get that reference)."
Oh gosh, we used to have that in the UK too, it was called "Blind Date"... I can just imagine the ME version. Thanks for a good giggle on a wet and windy morning here in Wales!
|
|
|
elaen32
Gondor
May 9 2013, 11:01am
Post #15 of 19
(228 views)
Shortcut
|
This was required viewing for us as students in the 1980s- we all had to watch it before going out on Saturday night! Terrible show really, but addictive in a silly way. I can just picture Cilla saying "Now, Tauriel, who are you going to choose out our three loovely guys, Mr A, the lover from Lindon? Mr B, the mover from Mirkwood? or Mr C the worm-slayer of Wilderland?
"Beneath the roof of sleeping leaves the dreams of trees unfold"
|
|
|
innoce77
Registered User
May 9 2013, 11:29am
Post #16 of 19
(227 views)
Shortcut
|
As for Tauriel, she's going to be the bachelorette in the ME version of "The Dating Game," with Kili, Bard and Thranduil in the chairs behind the wall (apologies to you toddlers who won't get that reference).
Lol! If this turn out to be true....well sounds terrible!
|
|
|
Kimtc
Rohan
May 9 2013, 1:56pm
Post #17 of 19
(231 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The UK version sounds way more entertaining!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The US version was as tacky and pitiful as one would expect. Makes "The Bachelor" and "The Bachelorette" seem like high art.
They sat everyone in these tall director's chairs. I have this picture of Kili trying to get into the chair gracefully, while Thranduil just kind if swans into his.
|
|
|
elaen32
Gondor
May 9 2013, 2:17pm
Post #18 of 19
(210 views)
Shortcut
|
|
No, I'm afraid the UK one is probably very similar!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Yes, there were the tall chairs behind the dividing wall etc It was tacky in the extreme, but I think we were maybe less demanding then! It was one of those shows that was "so bad, it's good"
"Beneath the roof of sleeping leaves the dreams of trees unfold"
|
|
|
DwellerInDale
Rohan
May 9 2013, 2:34pm
Post #19 of 19
(244 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Here's Our Bard, from Esgaroth-Upon-Lake!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Yeah, as an American who lived in England for 7 years, Blind Date was so bad it was funny-- the best part (unlike "The Dating Game" in America) was that the couple would come back a few weeks later and give these vituperative reports about the date and why it didn't work out ("Cor, he called his mum three times a day!"). Used to put me on the floor.
Don't mess with my favorite female elf.
|
|
|
|
|
