Bain Bardson in 'The Hobbit'?

If I'd known that you also posted here, I would have credited you for the link in the first place. Thanks for the tip.
 
In the ROTK appendices Bain becomes king in 2977 which would be about 36 years after the events in The Hobbit. Luke Evans is only 32 so will Bain be about 12? If so, at 29, Michael Fowler is almost as old as Luke.
 
Michael Fowler is alleged to be the scale double for Bain, not the primary actor. Tolkien apparently never indicated when Bain was born, so Jackson has a lot of leeway with his age.
 
Since a young boy would be about the height of a full dwarf, they need a normal height adult stand-in so as to appear as a young boy when standing next to the actors playing the dwarves when they are speaking. Then the dwarves' mini stand-ins could stand next to the actor who will actually play Bain when it is his turn to speak. Interesting....
 
The townsfolk become so excited because the King Under the Mountain has returned and I'm sure any young boy would want to be in the middle of all of the commotion and excitement and see the dwarves in person.
 
would bard have a sub plot exactly? And what exactly would it be about? I always imagined Bard would be the Eomer of Laketown, in conflict with the greedy master of laketown. I don't see how his son could be anything other than a theodred...

In the book Bard isn't a deep character, I would like them to keep him like he is in the book. Expanding on Bard which btw is a very uninteresting character...would be changing way too much of where the spotlight is suppose to be; on Bilbo and the dwarves. Laketown should be seen from their perspective, maybe a scene where Bard is arguing with the master of laketown...then he would lead laketown in the battle against Smaug in the same way Gandalf leads the defence of Minas Tirith.

Then he kills the dragon...which really means nothing and marches to the mountain to have one tiny speech about the treasure. I don't think there is need to expand his role and introduce his family, I mean he wasn't a big role in the book. Why change it? It was after all Bilbo that made it possible for Bard to kill Smaug. So there really doesn't need to be any back story to Bard. He is a puppet while Bilbo is the puppeteer.
 
They want to show what this new hero is fighting for. Remember the scenes with the kids, women and old people at Helmsdeep? Without those the defense of Helmsdeep would feel kind of hollow in my opinion; "why did they need Helmsdeep anyway?"
Showing Bard as a considerate father would make him more than "the hero destined for greatness", a role that Aragorn already filled in LOTR. It would make his character more realistic and easier to relate to. He isn't opposing the Master of Laketown out of "honour", "rightousness" or "justice". He wants what's best for the families of Laketown, his inculded!
 
but at least Bard has a past that an be drawn from Tolkiens own writings, He goes on to be the future King of Dale, as does his son after him. His son was present at the council of Elrond when the fellowship was forged. Bard has a much richer history and future than some of the other characters in the Hobbit, Which is exactly why he should be given a bit of a bigger role. He does kill Smaug which if not for that there would have been no battle of the 5 armies because Bilbo and the dwarfs would have been Barbeque and Smaug would still reign under the mountain. I mean theres the whole issue with Bard having differences with the master of Laketown and then reforming Dale after the Battle of 5 armies. Jackson needs to make the audience have some emotional interest in Bard with him being the one who kills Smaug and is King of Dale who aids the dwarfs in their time of need.
 
Lord Girion and King Thror were likely well acquainted during more prosperous times and were probably friends before Smaug destroyed their kingdoms, so Bard and Thorin would presumably have plenty to discuss during Thorin's extended stay in Lake-town. Perhaps Bard will pull Thorin aside at some point and have words with him. The movie revealing and exploring this connection would make the tension between them later in the film more compelling.

With his tragic lineage, premonitions, grim nature and persona non grata status, family, destiny, noble nature and leadership during times of trouble, I think Bard is a very interesting character even though Tolkien chose not to reveal much about him in the book. I like the direction in which the film is taking him. In the film, Peter Jackson can afford to dwell a little more on the time the dwarves spent in Lake-town than Tolkien did in the book.
 
If Bilbo and Bain bond in a "Pippin and Bergil" kind-of way, with Bard acting as Beregond towards Bilbo and Thorin. Thst would extent Bard's role in the story somewhat during the Laketown segment of Film 2...
 
They were gratuitous and "stock" - as in "stock clip of women and children crying."

I never believed for a second that those people were in danger, and it didn't enhance the scenes' impact at all.

I agree with Thorgal. Keep Bard simple. He's an archetype, and shouldn't be "deepened." Bilbo and the dwarves are the important ones.

-GN
 
Last edited:
Bilbo and the dwarfs are the main concern, they will be showing other characters and other plot lines. I think Laketown will be expanded upon what we seen in the book along with Bard's role in the films. PJ is gonna go for a character driven death of Smaug and the best way to do that is to have your audience invested in Bard who is the one who kills him. the film makers are going to want you rooting for Bard instead of not giving a crap one way or the other, because you already know Bard is going to kill Smaug. They are going to want people thinking to themselves, YES!!!! when Bard lets that last black arrow fly, killing Smaug. to just show him as an uninteresting character will not get people emotionally invested in him, but showing him as a family man, as well as the ever pessimistic prophet that he is in the book. from what they show in the book with Bilbo giving Bard the Arkenstone, they should expand Laketown to show that Bilbo feels he can trust Bard to do what is right, and know that he is a good but somber man who only has his peoples best intentions in mind.
 
Jackson needs to make the audience have some emotional interest in Bard with him being the one who kills Smaug and is King of Dale who aids the dwarfs in their time of need.
Click to expand...
As I said Bard is just a puppet, no spotlight should be put on him. He isn't a major character but a minor, even if he kills the dragon it's Bilbo that is in the spotlight. He is a puppet in the book and should remain to be only a puppet in the movie, his only purpose is to want the people of laketown or dale or whatever to have a piece of the treasure. His motives and future isn't important. To me he is about as important as Eomer is in the movies. He is this symbol of Rohan, nothing more nothing less. I think Bard should have a similar role, symbol for the people of laketown nothing more nothing less.

Bard has a much richer history and future than some of the other characters in the Hobbit
Click to expand...
Not if you compare to:

Thranduil
Beorn

In fact in the hobbit (book). Thranduil and Beorn had a bigger role than Bard. If I'm not mistaken Bard is first introduced when Smaug attacks. His history is unimportant, he is just a figure to represent the people of dale at the battle of the five armies.

Perhaps Bard will pull Thorin aside at some point and have words with him. The movie revealing and exploring this connection would make the tension between them later in the film more compelling.
Click to expand...
Should this be considered fan fic?
With his tragic lineage, premonitions, grim nature and persona non grata status, family, destiny, noble nature and leadership during times of trouble, I think Bard is a very interesting character even though Tolkien chose not to reveal much about him in the book.
Click to expand...
Maybe Tolkien didn't reveal anything in the book about him because he didn't want to put the spotlight on him but on Bilbo? I agree with Tolkien...fan fiction in the form of making unimportant characters important is...not ok.
If Bilbo and Bain bond in a "Pippin and Bergil" kind-of way, with Bard acting as Beregond towards Bilbo and Thorin.
Click to expand...
That is...I'm sorry but how would this make the hobbit better? This is bad fan fiction. Sorry if I'm offending.
I agree with Thorgal. Keep Bard simple. He's an archetype, and shouldn't be "deepened." Bilbo and the dwarves are the important ones.
Click to expand...
Quoted for truth...
 
to Beorn. Beorn gives them some ponies, supplies, feeds them and sends them on their way and then pulls a basically dead Thorin out of the battle. where as Bard fights in the battle just as much as Beorn, kills Smaug, and is a lost king of Dale. how is that not more important than Beorn? beorn didn't even warrant any real stories in Tolkiens notes about who he was or even what happened to him after other than he led the woodsmen between the Anduin river and Mirkwood and died before the war of the ring. Bard became king and restored Dale and had a whole lineage that Tolkien himself wrote
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
The Bridge Film, The Hobbit and The Hunt for Gollum
Replies
0
Views
10K
Chen G.
C
C
The Hunt for Stunt Casting?
Replies
1
Views
19K
DGHCaretaker
DGHCaretaker
C
The Hunt for Gollum: a Production History
Replies
0
Views
43
Chen G.
C
C
"It's not a franchise!" How Middle-earth was hand-crafted
Replies
19
Views
8K
Chen G.
C
Otaku-sempai
The Hunt for Gollum might be looking for a new Arwen. And Gilraen?
2
Replies
29
Views
8K
DGHCaretaker
DGHCaretaker
Back
Top