CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › 'THE HOBBIT' ADDS MORE DWARVES, BEORN, AND ... GALADRIEL?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

'THE HOBBIT' ADDS MORE DWARVES, BEORN, AND ... GALADRIEL?

post #1 of 152
12/8/10 at 9:40am
Thread Starter 
More...
Reply
post #2 of 152
12/8/10 at 9:52am
Actually (and this is from memory since I'm still at work) Galadriel was in the White Counsil and took part in the assault on Dol Guldur. So this confirms that the added stuff will be about Dol Guldur and the Necromancer.
Reply
post #3 of 152
12/8/10 at 10:02am
I was trying to remember if she was in the White Council or not, googled it, and came up with nothing. I may be trusting Wikipedia too much, though.
Reply
post #4 of 152
12/8/10 at 10:04am
Updated, though! Still...too much for one movie.
Reply
post #5 of 152
12/8/10 at 10:05am
She was in the second White Council with Saruman, Gandalf, Elrond and Cirdan.

I can't believe I still know all this stuff from memory. I may have to steal my own lunch money for being such a geek.
Reply
post #6 of 152
12/8/10 at 10:11am
I didn't know that about McCoy. That's pretty cool.
Reply
post #7 of 152
12/8/10 at 10:16am
McKellen and Serkis still haven't been confirmed. So maybe they'll announce Weaving returning when they do so for them?
Reply
post #8 of 152
12/8/10 at 10:18am
I'm guessing this will be Bilbo's happy adventure intercut with Gandalf's necromancer biznezz, ending with Bilbo back in Hobbiton and Gandalf thinking evil has been vanquished, then an ominous reminder that Bilbo has a certain ring.
Reply
post #9 of 152
12/8/10 at 10:21am
As soon as I saw pics of Stott I had him pegged as a dwarf. Same with Persbrandt as Beorn.

A little troubled about Bilbo's father being in the film. I really hope we don't start off with some hammer-to-the-head prologue with Drogo telling young Bilbo about how respectable hobbits don't go on adventures or somesuch. The story works just fine without having to reveal the Baggins family tree.
Reply
post #10 of 152
12/8/10 at 10:36am
Wow, Liz. Pent up issues with the LOTR films much? It's been a while... deep breaths, let go.

I'd trust Jackson to not add in any cutesy Drogo/Frodo-Baby bullshit. That sounds like Lucas territory.
Reply
post #11 of 152
12/8/10 at 10:41am
The handwringing over too many characters/two films at this stage strikes me as Tom Bombadil Syndrome. LOVELY BONES missteps aside, Jackson's earnt our trust when it comes to this material.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Elisabeth
Or Gimli acting like a moron for 97% of the trilogy.
Gimli has no character whatsoever in Tolkien's originals. I do not get this complaint at all - are you against ANY variation from the source material?
Reply
post #12 of 152
12/8/10 at 10:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan C.B. View Post
Wow, Liz. Pent up issues with the LOTR films much? It's been a while... deep breaths, let go.

I'd trust Jackson to not add in any cutesy Drogo/Frodo-Baby bullshit. That sounds like Lucas territory.
Oh, I see. Criticism or commentary of any kind is now evidence of some "pent-up" neuroses.

Thanks for diagnosing me. I'll copy and paste press releases from now on so as not to trouble anyone.
Reply
post #13 of 152
12/8/10 at 10:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather View Post
The handwringing over too many characters/two films at this stage strikes me as Tom Bombadil Syndrome. LOVELY BONES missteps aside, Jackson's earnt our trust when it comes to this material.



Gimli has no character whatsoever in Tolkien's originals. I do not get this complaint at all - are you against ANY variation from the source material?
A lot of people complained that Gimli was clumsy comedic relief. I don't care if there's variation from the source, but I do care if it's one note.
Reply
post #14 of 152
12/8/10 at 10:58am
As opposed to "no-note", which is what Tolkien's Gimli is. He's a warm body in the books - at least here you understand why he and Legolas become so close.
Reply
post #15 of 152
12/8/10 at 11:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather View Post
As opposed to "no-note", which is what Tolkien's Gimli is. He's a warm body in the books - at least here you understand why he and Legolas become so close.
I don't believe I ever said he should be exactly as he was in the books, Andrew. It doesn't work to debate if you're going to simply ascribe an opinion to me.

I don't have a problem with Gimli providing some of the comedy but Jackson could have given him a few more serious moments. The scene between him and Galadriel works better as character work than his snoring during Gandalf's lament.

But then I prefer a little subtlety in my storytelling over burping.
Reply
post #16 of 152
12/8/10 at 11:10am
Negativity in a thread about an upcoming Tolkien film? Someone hold me!

The nostalgia from the pre-LOTR period is so overwhelming, I think I'm going to pass out. Thank you guys.
Reply
post #17 of 152
12/8/10 at 11:15am
In my opinion, Gimli had plenty of serious moments in the trilogy and it worked well with what they did with his role in the storyline. Beneath the comedy there was still a sturdy, well-meaning dwarf.

Anyway, about these particular casting announcements, I'm most intrigued about Mikael Persbrandt as Beorn. He definitely has the looks and presence, and it's refreshing to see that Jackson didn't necessarily go in the direction of a more well-known actor who stereotypically fills in the "tough guy" role without bringing any sense of depth.
Reply
post #18 of 152
12/8/10 at 11:18am
I had never heard of Mikael Persbrandt before. Suffice it to say IMDB lists a rather...interesting start to his acting career.
Reply
post #19 of 152
12/8/10 at 11:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elisabeth Rappe View Post
I don't believe I ever said he should be exactly as he was in the books, Andrew. It doesn't work to debate if you're going to simply ascribe an opinion to me.

I don't have a problem with Gimli providing some of the comedy but Jackson could have given him a few more serious moments. The scene between him and Galadriel works better as character work than his snoring during Gandalf's lament.

But then I prefer a little subtlety in my storytelling over burping.
It's just such a weird thing to single out if you're not wed to the Gimli of Tolkien's originals. Gimli's the comic relief. These are huge, epic family films. In a trilogy with about thirty important characters, all interacting and moving all over a make-believe map, I think it's churlish to focus on one of those characters being used as a funny guy for the younger audience. It's not like the guy suddenly became an incompetent warrior or anything. He's a third-string supporting player, and he's well defined, well acted and consistent throughout. Considering Jackson managed to convey the geography of Middle Earth AND juggle all the characters AND adapt the story of the books without hackign it to pieces AND make a highly unconventional narrative both cinematic and emotionally affecting, you seem to have a pretty negative opinion based on some pretty minor niggles.
Reply
post #20 of 152
12/8/10 at 11:21am
Gimli: It's like that friend who's an asshole, but he's our asshole.
Reply
post #21 of 152
12/8/10 at 11:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather View Post
It's just such a weird thing to single out if you're not wed to the Gimli of Tolkien's originals. Gimli's the comic relief. These are huge, epic family films. In a trilogy with about thirty important characters, all interacting and moving all over a make-believe map, I think it's churlish to focus on one of those characters being used as a funny guy for the younger audience. It's not like the guy suddenly became an incompetent warrior or anything. He's a third-string supporting player, and he's well defined, well acted and consistent throughout. Considering Jackson managed to convey the geography of Middle Earth AND juggle all the characters AND adapt the story of the books without hackign it to pieces AND make a highly unconventional narrative both cinematic and emotionally affecting, you seem to have a pretty negative opinion based on some pretty minor niggles.
The LOTR films rank among my favorites.

I can, however, discuss them as films -- including their flaws -- without feeling as if I've betrayed them or sold them out in some way. It doesn't alter what I enjoy about them at all.

Again, you're criticizing something that I haven't even expressed. I pointed out some flaws, and suddenly I have "a pretty negative opinion" of the trilogy as a whole. All from a news article where I expressed a little reserve.

I'm quickly realizing you can't discuss LOTR -- film or books -- anywhere online without being branded something you're not.
Reply
post #22 of 152
12/8/10 at 11:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather View Post
The handwringing over too many characters/two films at this stage strikes me as Tom Bombadil Syndrome. LOVELY BONES missteps aside, Jackson's earnt our trust when it comes to this material.
And I really have to add that as shitty as Lovely Bones is on the whole, there are sequences and scenes in there that prove Jackson is still a very, very strong filmmaker.

The big 'rape scene' for one is phenomenal in my opinion. And the scene where Wahlberg gathers firewood with Tucci is another standout that shows he can still handle tense drama.
Reply
post #23 of 152
12/8/10 at 11:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather View Post
The handwringing over too many characters/two films at this stage strikes me as Tom Bombadil Syndrome. LOVELY BONES missteps aside, Jackson's earnt our trust when it comes to this material.
I was on-board with removing Bombadil. I still think two films and cramming in the White Council are bad ideas. I have trust, but it isn't blind.
Reply
post #24 of 152
12/8/10 at 11:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elisabeth Rappe View Post
Oh, I see. Criticism or commentary of any kind is now evidence of some "pent-up" neuroses.
The news of inclusion of two characters sent you into a tangent. No one knows how or how much they'll be in the film(s). There's little to no reason to bring up the skull-surfing or Gimli comic relief complaints. I don't see how two characters (who actually fit) possibly being in The Hobbit is reason to doubt Jackson and bring up quibbles. Especially when, as Andrew said, he handled 99% of the trilogy so damn well.
To be fair, I was sick of hearing Gimli bitching a few months after the Two Towers release, so to hear the same stuff eight years later irked me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elisabeth Rappe View Post
Thanks for diagnosing me. I'll copy and paste press releases from now on so as not to trouble anyone.
Yes, that's obviously what I meant. No need for hyperbole.
Reply
post #25 of 152
12/8/10 at 11:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan C.B. View Post
I don't see how two characters (who actually fit) possibly being in The Hobbit is reason to doubt Jackson and bring up quibbles.
Not to beat a dead horse, but Galadriel does NOT fit in The Hobbit, other than being a resident of Middle-earth at the time.
Reply
post #26 of 152
12/8/10 at 11:59am
It's been years and years since I read it, so I'm probably gonna retract that statement since I can't really back it up with specifics.
Reply
post #27 of 152
12/8/10 at 12:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan C.B. View Post
The news of inclusion of two characters sent you into a tangent. No one knows how or how much they'll be in the film(s). There's little to no reason to bring up the skull-surfing or Gimli comic relief complaints. I don't see how two characters (who actually fit) possibly being in The Hobbit is reason to doubt Jackson and bring up quibbles. Especially when, as Andrew said, he handled 99% of the trilogy so damn well.
To be fair, I was sick of hearing Gimli bitching a few months after the Two Towers release, so to hear the same stuff eight years later irked me.
Yes, that's obviously what I meant. No need for hyperbole.
It was a sentence. One sentence commenting on two scenes. I'd hardly call that a tangent. It was a bit of criticism that's being blown wildly out of proportion.

The rest of my comments were about Galadriel and Drogo not appearing in The Hobbit. Which they don't. That's a fact. Stuffing them into the story (and again, others have criticized the Necromancer and Dol Goldur being crammed in as well) strikes me as something to be concerned about. Especially since Jackson DOES ascribe to a "more is better" philosophy, as evidenced even by LOTR.

I don't care if someone disagrees with me. I really don't. But I'd like to think one could at least respect my opinion on some level, and not just dismiss it with a remark of "deep breath, let it go"

That's what I took issue with, and if it came off as bitchy, I'm sorry. But I like discussing movies -- and saying get over it, and get in lockstep agreement doesn't promote that at all.
Reply
post #28 of 152
12/8/10 at 12:04pm
And sure, Jackson earned our trust with his changes to LOTR. But then he took a simple, well-known story and made it into an overlong epic and then made an adaptation of a book whose common criticism was that he missed the point of the story. Shouldn't those raise some warning signs when it seems he's doing both again when it comes to The Hobbit?
Reply
post #29 of 152
12/8/10 at 12:06pm
I certainly didn't mean lockstep agreement, though I will cop to the "get over it" sentiment mainly because I've just dealt with too many nerds ignoring the semi-miraculous feat Jackson pulled off because Gimli burped one too many times. So my original post was pretty kneejerk and dismissive, and I'm sorry for that.

On topic: is there a script floating around? Where does the added stuff info come from?
Reply
post #30 of 152
12/8/10 at 12:10pm
It's long been reported that he's adding in the Necromancer sub-plot. Been so since Del Toro was on board. It's come directly from Jackson.
Reply
post #31 of 152
12/8/10 at 12:30pm
Just to squirt a bit of lighter fluid on the barbie....I agree 100% with Elizabeth re: Gimli's treatment in the films. The very few serious moments he had in the movies didn't work because he was such a clueless jerk for the rest - and the "comedic" moments were LCD, pandering at their worst.

I do love the films, but have always hated Jackson's interpretation of Gimli. Dwarves were represented as serious (dour, even), badass fighters and allies, with an overdeveloped sense of self importance. Jackson opted for something else. Fine. I just wish it hadn't been humor aimed at 10 year olds.
Reply
post #32 of 152
12/8/10 at 12:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco Senior View Post
Anyway, about these particular casting announcements, I'm most intrigued about Mikael Persbrandt as Beorn. He definitely has the looks and presence, and it's refreshing to see that Jackson didn't necessarily go in the direction of a more well-known actor who stereotypically fills in the "tough guy" role without bringing any sense of depth.
"Tough guy without any sense of depth" is pretty much how I would describe every role that Persbrandt has ever done. And he can't even do that right.
Reply
post #33 of 152
12/8/10 at 12:45pm
I'm in the one film camp and I think some of this information is worrying. But this news article contains just the right amount of skepticism, especially compared to many other articles that are full of out right disdain for the subject. I'm not speaking specifically about the LOTR/Hobbit here.
Reply
post #34 of 152
12/8/10 at 1:01pm
Also, the theatrical release of ROTK was kind of a mess, if I'm being honest. It hit the really big emotional beats like no one's business but there were some brutal edits from too many spinning plates, for sure.
Reply
post #35 of 152
12/8/10 at 1:47pm
Depending on how they adapt the White Council, what could this mean for Christopher Lee's return as Saruman? He's said in no uncertain terms that he's no longer physically fit to travel to New Zealand, but if they film closer to him in an interior or use CG to have him on the set like they did with Galadriel and Elrond in RotK? I don't know.
Reply
post #36 of 152
12/8/10 at 2:58pm
I don't care for the Gimli comedy show moments in the films that just aren't fucking funny, like the beer drinking scene or the "it's tight across the chest" comment, but I don't at all mind there being a bit of humor in his gruff and tactless character. Just so long as the humor isn't trite and obvious (Gimli's short! Gimli's a dwarf! Har har har!), and much of it is. To recap-- it's not that the humor shouldn't be there, it's that it shouldn't be written for shit.

I'm willing to give Jackson the benefit of the doubt regarding the addition of Galadriel and even Bilbo's old man, but that doesn't mean I'm not guarding myself a bit in the back of my mind in order to prepare for the potential excesses that such little "extras" might lead to. Jackson should be keeping the story nice and lean without adding in extra fat; like the above, I don't care about the fat if it helps make the movie more cohesive or adds to it some other beneficial way. I still reserve the right to be concerned that such additions could lead to a less focused production.
Reply
post #37 of 152
12/8/10 at 3:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elisabeth Rappe View Post
I'm quickly realizing you can't discuss LOTR -- film or books -- anywhere online without being branded something you're not.
Forget it, Rappe, it's Hobbiton.
Reply
post #38 of 152
12/8/10 at 3:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elisabeth Rappe View Post
I don't need a corny scene (a'la "The Soup Scene" or "The Drinking Contest" he so cheerfully gave us in The Two Towers and The Return of the King, respectively)

But then we might also ask why we needed Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli slithering down 1,000,000,000,000,000 human skulls. Or Gimli acting like a moron for 97% of the trilogy.
To be fair, these three examples are all from the overkill editions of the films. IMHO Jackson was right to leave them out of the theatrical, along with pretty much everything else he did.

The books and films already have more than enough noble, worthy characters. Movie Gimli is comic relief, but the book version of the character is dull, and the films need lightening up. Without "corny" Gimli scenes (or most corny Merry-Pippin scenes for that matter), these films would be a total hard slog, nothing but battles and crying and heavy-ass wagnerian music.

Jackson has to adapt a book featuring characters named Fili, Kili, Bifur, Bofur and Bombur into something that won't make audiences throw up in their mouths. I think he'll be careful.
Reply
post #39 of 152
12/8/10 at 4:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
I was on-board with removing Bombadil. I still think two films and cramming in the White Council are bad ideas. I have trust, but it isn't blind.
This. Thank you, Richard.
Reply
post #40 of 152
12/8/10 at 4:58pm
Rappe's gripes about the films were totally reasonable. Even for someone who hadn't read the books and had nothing to compare his portrayal to. Actually, I did. I had the more balanced portrayal of humor and gruffness that was done in FOTR. I rolled my eyes at Gimli's near-C3PO-in-AOTC-levels of LCD humor that started cropping up a lot more with TTT. It continued with ROTK.

Love the films. But I think it was a justified criticism. A sentence that led to a tangent about the writer's thoughts on the trilogy is exactly what keeps me coming back to CHUD anyway.
Reply
post #41 of 152
12/8/10 at 5:03pm
Yeah, I found it odd that the right balance was struck with Gimli in FotR but completely missed in the subsequent films.
Reply
post #42 of 152
12/8/10 at 5:05pm
It was different to the point that I've assumed that a lot of that bad Gimli humor came from reshoots and pick-ups done after the release of the first film.
Reply
post #43 of 152
12/8/10 at 5:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by agracru View Post
Yeah, I found it odd that the right balance was struck with Gimli in FotR but completely missed in the subsequent films.
I thought the only really cringe-worthy bit was the stuff with the horses in TTT. I actually liked the drinking game stuff.
Reply
post #44 of 152
12/8/10 at 5:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
It was different to the point that I've assumed that a lot of that bad Gimli humor came from reshoots and pick-ups done after the release of the first film.
Probably a fair assumption, since none of it jibes with the humor of Fellowship[ in the slightest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Devildoubt View Post
I thought the only really cringe-worthy bit was the stuff with the horses in TTT. I actually liked the drinking game stuff.
Depends on what stuff with the horses you mean. The fact that he couldn't get on a horse without assistance or him falling off the horse while talking about Dwarven women?

The moments I really cringe at are the ones that are bookended by moments that actually work. I can't stand the panning shot of the elves lined up along the Deeping Wall being interrupted by a stupid height joke. Conversely I love the moment where Legolas offers Gimli a box. One feels appropriate, one feels a hundred percent unnecessary.
Reply
post #45 of 152
12/8/10 at 6:23pm
I always kind of figured the reason they went down the 'Gimli as comic relief' route was because a) John Rhys Davies was so good at it, and b) it's VERY difficult to portray a dwarf convincingly on film, especially when you want him fighting, riding horses, etc. With the hobbits it worked because they were meant to be fragile and not typical fighters. But it always seemed like the filmmakers faced an uphill struggle to make a dwarf look like a formidable warrior. He always looked awkward and sluggish, what with the armour and everything, because it was either the actor fighting against nobody in close-up, or the stunt double who was too small to swing the axe with any heft.

I do agree he was better in FOTR than in the others. But what with all the battles in TTT and ROTK, I think they thought having him be the light relief was preferable to trying in vain to make him look badass.
Reply
post #46 of 152
12/8/10 at 6:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by agracru View Post
The moments I really cringe at are the ones that are bookended by moments that actually work. I can't stand the panning shot of the elves lined up along the Deeping Wall being interrupted by a stupid height joke. Conversely I love the moment where Legolas offers Gimli a box. One feels appropriate, one feels a hundred percent unnecessary.
Yeah, that needed clarification. Him being dragged was a little too much like C3P-0 in ATOC and that bugged me a bit.

But the rest of seemed fine, at least to me. But I do see your point. However, how do you set up the box line -- which seems sort of organic and is a turning point for their characters relationship -- without establishing where Gimli is and the obvious problems his height causes.
Reply
post #47 of 152
12/8/10 at 6:53pm
You can take away the initial set-up establishing Gimli's location and still have Aragorn sidling up to him and Legolas, can't you?

Don't get me wrong, I really like the rest of the sequence, but I feel like the "you could have picked a better spot" line is just a huge, raucous fart interrupting a somber and tension-building moment. Maybe I'm just nitpicking.

And hey, Gimli's not sluggish at all. Rhys-Davies' little stunt double looks like a damn demon swinging that axe around, and if I recall everyone was afraid of choreographing with him because he actually beat the piss out of the stuntmen. (Could be wrong on that.)
Reply
post #48 of 152
12/8/10 at 7:00pm
It's the general way Gimli and Legolas were used in the 2nd and 3rd movies. I just watched ROTK again and there was a line that really bugged me that was very similar to Legolas' "A diversion!" line.

It's after the Dead Green Glob helps them win the battle at Minas Tirith, its leader demands that the army be released. Gimli says "Bad idea!" But then he also has to say, "Very handy in a battle, these lads... DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY'RE DEAD!"

THANK YOU FOR THAT, GIMLI!!!!
Reply
post #49 of 152
12/8/10 at 7:09pm
Those two lines always bothered me too. Duh, guys. Duh.
Reply
post #50 of 152
12/8/10 at 7:11pm
Drogo's appearance truly frightens me, because it's possible that PJ may commit a serious plot hole.

Where there's Drogo Baggins, there's Primula Baggins. And the only reason to include those two would be to show baby Frodo.

But The Hobbit takes place 60 years before LoTR. Frodo is most certainly not 60-years-old in the trilogy, so there is no humanly possible way to include him in any capacity.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › 'THE HOBBIT' ADDS MORE DWARVES, BEORN, AND ... GALADRIEL?