Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - - Part 16

[C. Lee]

I first read the books in 1972.....and waited decades for the movies to be made. I have a ****load of merchandise LOTR related, I'm sure plenty of the money went to the Tolkien estate. Does having a talking Treebeard figure lessen the artistic quality of the books.....nope.

 

[Super Kal]

That makes you one of the good ones.

Tell me, though: in your visual imagination, what causes the storm on Caradhras? What colour is Legolas' hair? What colour do Orcs tend to be?

well, in all honesty, i havent gotten that far just yet... going through these books is a slow process for me (work takes up so much time)... im only up to the point where Gandalf discovers Samwise eavesdropping...

but when i read the lines of Gandalf, i do hear the voice of Ian McKellen in my head

and when it comes to an orc... well, i grew up playing Warcraft and Warcraft II, so they could be dark green, or a dark and pale color... grey, maybe... im not picky about the color

 

[Victarion]

Black orcs? Golden hair on Legolas. I don't recall the cause of the storm. Refresh my memory, regwec.

 

[ares834]

IIRC, it's left ambiguous in the books but it's almost as if the mountain is sentient.

As for Legolas's hair, I don think it is ever specifically given a color. But it was likely a dark color as golden hair was a rarity among elves that were not of Vanyar descent. Still, for some reason I've always envisioned most elves as being blonde. Don't really know why.

 

[Boom]

Elves were predominantly dark-haired, if I recall. And when they have golden hair, Tolkien has been pretty consistent with making a point of mentioning it (Thranduil, Galadriel, among others).

Legolas having blonde hair doesn't bother me (Tolkien never says he doesn't, so it's at least arguable), but in reading the books, I picture darker hair.

Orcs, I believe they were mentioned as having black skin, and being dressed in dark browns.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I imagined Legolas to have an expressive, lively face. Imagine my shock When Bloom played him.

 

[Boom]

The vibe you get from Legolas in the book is a sense of wonder. Even in the middle of a war, he is constantly taking the time to appreciate the beauty and history of his surroundings. It's not only part of his own individual characterization, but it also plays a part in his dynamic with Gimli.

Bloom had that at times in LoTR, but yeah. As a whole, not my cup of tea. So you can imagine my profound joy upon learning that he was going to have an extensive role in The Hobbit - now so caked in makeup and CG touch-ups that he looks more like an animated, life-like Legolas sex doll than an actual living being .

 

[craigdbfan]

Don't you ever insult bloated Hobbit Legolas.

 

[sueb1863]

Well, heck, Bloom was what, ten or eleven years older than when he made LotR. Pretty much no other way to make him look younger, and it's made even trickier by the fact that Elves aren't supposed to age at all.

They ran into the same problem when they made "Gods and Generals", the prequel to the movie "Gettysburg", ten years after "Gettysburg" came out. They used most of the same cast but all of them, especially Jeff Daniels who had the central role of Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, had visibly aged. They mostly worked around it but it was pretty obvious that G&G was made long after Gettysburg. That's show biz!

 

[regwec]

when i read the lines of Gandalf, i do hear the voice of Ian McKellen in my head

and when it comes to an orc... well, i grew up playing Warcraft and Warcraft II, so they could be dark green

Golden hair on Legolas.

Here we come to it: with no disrespect to anyone, I think it is inevitable that movies and associated merchandise can drown out the original text being adapted, or at the very least colour perceptions of it. It is perfectly legitimate to prefer the experience of a movie, a videogame, an action figure etc to a book, and I don't seek to make a judgement on that. But we can hardly blame the Tolkien family for their realisation that the commercial juggernauts that movie adaptations become may threaten to overawe the original stories themselves. That can only more salient when the adaptations in question are of a poor quality, and show little fidelity or sensitivity to the original story and characters.

It's clear that Christopher Tolkien feels himself to be a custodian of his father's stories. As head of the estate, and presumably a trustee, he is. None of us know what conversations occured between JRR and Christopher, or what the former's wishes were. Frankly, I think it is damned disrespectful to call Christopher an "old fart" for his desire to protect the stories that we all love, particularly when The Silmarillion and its associated works would never have been published without his years of hard work.

 

[Vartha]

Here we come to it: with no disrespect to anyone, I think it is inevitable that movies and associated merchandise can drown out the original text being adapted, or at the very least colour perceptions of it. It is perfectly legitimate to prefer the experience of a movie, a videogame, an action figure etc to a book, and I don't seek to make a judgement on that. But we can hardly blame the Tolkien family for their realisation that the commercial juggernauts that movie adaptations become may threaten to overawe the original stories themselves. That can only more salient when the adaptations in question are of a poor quality, and show little fidelity or sensitivity to the original story and characters.

It's clear that Christopher Tolkien feels himself to be a custodian of his father's stories. As head of the estate, and presumably a trustee, he is. None of us know what conversations occured between JRR and Christopher, or what the former's wishes were. Frankly, I think it is damned disrespectful to call Christopher an "old fart" for his desire to protect the stories that we all love, particularly when The Silmarillion and its associated works would never have been published without his years of hard work.

Nobody's being disrespectful tho Reg. If Chris would just take the money the estate has gathered thus far and make his Own films MANY of us would totally be on board.
For NOW tho, those of us who love the books AND films (including the Bakshi films) LOVE the merch that comes with those stories, it's more like HONORING a Master than defiling his name.

 

[regwec]

Somebody used the very words that I said were disrespectful.

I am not saying that, for instance, owning an Arwen doll if you love LOTR is a bad thing. I am merely pointing out that it is understandable for the Tolkien family not to want people's first or only experience of the stories to be loveless movies that completely misrepresent what they are.

 

[Quasimod0]

Loveless movies?

 

[green]

Somebody used the very words that I said were disrespectful.

I am not saying that, for instance, owning an Arwen doll if you love LOTR is a bad thing. I am merely pointing out that it is understandable for the Tolkien family not to want people's first or only experience of the stories to be loveless movies that completely misrepresent what they are.

I think this debate is a bit of a double edged sword. On the one hand I agree with you, I can completely understand that some of the merchandising can tarnish or be misrepresentative of the source material…at the same time there's the flip side and the sheer amount of people who have been exposed to the literature that never would have been without the movies.
I don't think either side is right or wrong, just difference of opinions.

 

[regwec]

Of course it is! But that's my point: that the Tolkien family (or a voting majority of them) share a valid opinion.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Somebody used the very words that I said were disrespectful.

I am not saying that, for instance, owning an Arwen doll if you love LOTR is a bad thing. I am merely pointing out that it is understandable for the Tolkien family not to want people's first or only experience of the stories to be loveless movies that completely misrepresent what they are.

Agreed 100%

 

[DarkKnight88]

I am merely pointing out that it is understandable for the Tolkien family not to want people's first or only experience of the stories to be loveless movies that completely misrepresent what they are.

I think if you watched any of the behind the scenes making ofs, you'd clearly see that these films aren't "loveless" to the source material. Very much the opposite in fact. As for misrepresented, that's a matter of opinion of course.

And how about the fact that people who might have never read Tolkien's work might actually pick it up because of the movies? That's never a bad thing as green has pointed out.

 

[Marvolo]

Guys and girls, The Letters of JRR Tolkien book is $2.99 on the Kindle Marketplace. Idk how long the sale will last, but if you're curious about the man behind the story and his life that's a good place to start.

 

[Super Kal]

Frankly, I think it is damned disrespectful to call Christopher an "old fart" for his desire to protect the stories that we all love, particularly when The Silmarillion and its associated works would never have been published without his years of hard work.

honestly, i dont know why you collectively referred to me in this statement, because i have never referred to Christopher Tolkein as an "old fart"... in fact, I am very grateful for the finishing work he did in the Silmarillion. We wouldnt have the book that we have today if it weren't for him... for what it's worth, i kinda like the Silmarillion more that the Lord of the Rings, simply because it delves in the entire history of Middle Earth.

and i dont think it's a bad thing to hear the voice of Ian McKellen in my head when i read Lord of the Rings or the Hobbit... i think it's a bit presumptuous to make that kind of a claim... now if you dont like the film, that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that, but, with all due respect, please dont say that it's wrong to picture a particular voice when it comes to certain characters of the franchise, because, in all honesty, that's not your decision to make. everyone hears their own thing when they read these books... if you hear someone else, hey that's fine with me, I'm not gonna tell you that's wrong.

i still stand by the fact that i never would of even considered to pick up these books had i not seen the movies... heck, i never even heard of these books until these movies were created.

 

[regwec]

And how about the fact that people who might have never read Tolkien's work might actually pick it up because of the movies? That's never a bad thing as green has pointed out.

Which is what I have been answering for several pages, now.

and i dont think it's a bad thing to hear the voice of Ian McKellen in my head when i read Lord of the Rings or the Hobbit... i think it's a bit presumptuous to make that kind of a claim... now if you dont like the film, that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that, but, with all due respect, please dont say that it's wrong to picture a particular voice when it comes to certain characters of the franchise, because, in all honesty, that's not your decision to make. everyone hears their own thing when they read these books... if you hear someone else, hey that's fine with me, I'm not gonna tell you that's wrong.

Which is precisely why I emphatically said that it wasn't "wrong".

Believe it or not, I respect other posters here enough to put a certain amount of thought and care into my comments. If that is all ignored, then there is clearly no point.

 

[Vartha]

Somebody used the very words that I said were disrespectful.

I am not saying that, for instance, owning an Arwen doll if you love LOTR is a bad thing. I am merely pointing out that it is understandable for the Tolkien family not to want people's first or only experience of the stories to be loveless movies that completely misrepresent what they are.

I understand that. It's like Dragging a family member's memory through the mud when it's not necessary to do so.
That's why I'm saying why can't Chris at least HELP with the movies?

 

[Vartha]

Had to repost this, Sorry Reg but this IS funny and you might like this too lol
http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2014/1...for-72-part-movie-series-of-the-silmarillion/

 

[regwec]

In fact, I would be in favour of more Middle Earth movies- if they were good. I suspect the Tolkiens don't want to get involved in any adaptations because that may lead to them being perceived as authoritative in some way. Attitudes may change, however, once Christopher has passed away and as The Silmarillion nears the end of its copyright. Once further adaptations begin to seem inevitable, the notion that collaboration is the lesser of two evils may win out.

Personally, I would love to see a multi-part adaptation of the Tale of Turin directed by Ridley Scott. But it won't happen.

 

[Silvermoon]

A short little "memories of Middle Earth" featurette:

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Ridley Scott? Are we sure we wouldn't be begging for Jackson to come back if bad Ridley makes the film, instead of good Ridley? The two sides of Ridley are ever present, but their manifestation is very random. You cannot predict which side will show up. You might as well leave the quality of the next Ridley film to the chance of a coin toss. The only surety is that it will look purdy.