Official The Hobbit thread

[Boom]

Am I wrong, though? I'm pretty ignorant about 3D technology, so I don't know if this is an issue or not.

 

[Boom]

I'll be honest, the only casting that I've felt iffy about has been Frodo. I don't think that Elijah Wood did a bad job, but to me, something was a bit "off"; I can't quite put my finger on it though.

I've got several reasons.

Too young, too good-looking, questionable accent, and lacking the charisma needed for a leading role.

 

[redhawk23]

I think they respond to him as a victorious war hero. Kingliness comes with another set of qualities, which Boromir rarely seems to aspire to.

.

From the dawn of human civilization one of the original and foundational qualities and requirements for kingship was military success. Trust me, I just had to write a midterm exam on the very subject.

 

[Jackasscoley15]

Am I wrong, though? I'm pretty ignorant about 3D technology, so I don't know if this is an issue or not.

I'm in the same boat, I have no idea if that would affect the illusion. I assume if it were a problem, they would simply just use one of the other 999 methods they've used for Hobbit trickery. It would be a shame, though. I loved the forced perspective shots with Gandalf and Frodo in the carriage.

 

[Marvolo]

Did Bill Bailley get the role? He could definitely pull off a dwarf plus he hilarious.

 

[night0205]

They need to not make this movie in 3D. What was so great about LOTR was the creativity that it took to make the greatest trilogy ever put on film.

 

[Jackasscoley15]

BREAKING NEWS: James Nesbitt is Bofur & Adam Brown is Ori!

PETER JACKSON ANNOUNCES LATEST ADDITION TO THE HOBBIT CAST James Nesbitt Confirmed to Play Major Role in The Hobbit. (LOS ANGELES November 1, 2010) –One of Britain’s most beloved actors, James Nesbitt (Millions and TV’s Cold Feet), is the latest actor to join the ensemble cast of The Hobbit, it was jointly announced today by Toby Emmerich, President and Chief Operating Officer, New Line Cinema; Alan Horn, President and Chief Operating Officer, Warner Bros.; and Steve Cooper, co-Chief Executive Officer of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.

Nesbitt will play Bofur, a disarmingly forthright, funny and occasionally brave Dwarf. “James’s charm, warmth and wit are legendary as is his range as an actor in both comedic and dramatic roles. We feel very lucky to be able to welcome him as one of our cast.” said director Peter Jackson.

Newcomer, Adam Brown will play Ori, another of the Dwarf Company which sets out to reclaim the Lonely Mountain from the infamous dragon, Smaug. Jackson comments, “Adam is a wonderfully expressive actor and has a unique screen presence. I look forward to seeing him bring Ori to life”.

Nesbitt and Brown will join the cast announced on October 21, which includes Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage (soon to appear in Captain America: The First Avenger), Aidan Turner (TV’s Being Human), Rob Kazinsky (TVs EastEnders), Graham McTavish (Secretariat), John Callen (TV’s Power Rangers Jungle Fury), Stephen Hunter (TV’s All Saints), Mark Hadlow (King Kong) and Peter Hambleton (TV’s The Strip).

Since The Hobbit films received a green light on October 15, pre-production has been in full swing with release dates set for December, 2012 and December, 2013. The two The Hobbit films are being co-produced by New Line Cinema and MGM, with New Line managing production, Warner Bros Pictures handling domestic distribution and MGM distributing internationally.

Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Carolynne Cunningham are producing the films, with co-writer Philippa Boyens serving as co-producer and Ken Kamins as executive producer. The Oscar-winning, critically acclaimed LOTR trilogy, also from the production team of Jackson, Walsh and Cunningham, grossed nearly $3 billion worldwide at the box office. In 2003, “Return of the King” swept the Academy Awards, winning all of the 11 categories in which it was nominated, including Best Picture – the first ever Best Picture win for a fantasy film. The trilogy’s production was also unprecedented at the time.

 

[Boom]

That's ten dwarves accounted for. Only ones left are Balin, Nori, and Bifur.

And again - why the hell has McKellen not been re-signed yet?

 

[Angel_Faerie]

Relax, Boom. He and Andy are sure things.

 

[Boom]

YOU RELAX.




Anyway, it's amazing that out of the eleven people cast so far, I am only familiar with two of them. Lot of interesting faces, though.

 

[Solidus]

I'm amazed how quickly things went from "iffy" to full throttle.

 

[FVD]

Awesome stuff so just 3 Dwarves left huh? I could probably see an important actor landing the part of Balin. Also thinking about Stephen Fry apparently being offered a role in the films. What if Fry ended up as Beorn? I'm just feeling that Robbie Coltrane Hagrid vibe atm.

 

[regwec]

From the dawn of human civilization one of the original and foundational qualities and requirements for kingship was military success. Trust me, I just had to write a midterm exam on the very subject.

I wrote my first year dissertation on the correlation of Anglo-Saxon views on kingship and the success of royal saint's cults, so ner ner ner!

William Marshal, Robert Duke of Gloucester, John of Gaunt, Sir Francis Drake, John Churchill the Duke of Marlborough, The Duke of Wellington, Horatio Nelson and General Montgomery were all great military leaders beloved by their men, but the troops didn't confuse their personality cults with aspects of royalty.

Of course kings in the medieval and late classical periods (and before) were expected to be successful war leaders. That is an aspect of the nobility being the feudal (or tribal) warrior caste, and the king being its head. But notions of kingship grew to be much more nuanced than that. Compare an Anglo-Saxon king like Alfred the Great, who was both war leader and statesman as well as a scholar and architect; to some of the self-declared viking kings who opposed him. It is obvious from the traditions and heritage of the Numenoreon Kings of Arnor that human kingship in Middle Earth was expected to entail more than just martial prowess. After all, Elendil's line survived the destruction of Numenor by being wise, not brave. PJ probably did seek to stress Boromir's frustrated potential as a leader, but that should not mean that Aragorn is therefore cast in a (quietly) regal light.

I think this brings us to another major difference in Aragorn's character in movie and book, and something I had forgotten; in the books, Aragorn had been a king before he sat on the throne of Minas Tirith. He was the hereditary chieftain of the Dunedain, who recognised him and his forefathers as the heirs of Isildur. Sure, he didn't wear a crown, recline on a fur lined throne or have his wine poured by scented concubines; but he had long been a leader of men who recognised him as leader purely based on his heritage. To that end, the Aragorn of the books carries the Shards of Narsil with him at all times, and is entirely comfortable with his identity and its related responsibility and entitlements. He won't willingly give Narsil/Anduril to Theoden's gatekeeper. The Dundain carry Aragorn's black standard in secret for him. He is a king with subjects, albeit in exile. He goes about incognito to avoid assassination, but is very forthright in declaring himself to allies. His royal status is innate, and he seems to expect others to recognise it.

In that manner, the movies' Aragorn is different. There are no other Dunedain to be seen, though "rangers" are mentioned. He isn't so sure he wants to be king. He isn't sure he's worthy of Arwen. He has left the shards of Narsil in Rivendell, and is content to carry a different sword. The fact that Viggo's performance is quite understated, and his great speeches not so great, just helps to undermine the kingly elements of the character.

Now, what that does is produce a character who has a more rounded arc, and whose story is based on winning his reputation rather than seeing his destiny through. It is successful in its own right. But I do prefer the more unique character from the book, and I can understand why some people perceive the movies' Boromir to have stolen some of his clothes.

 

[Vapor]

wow, surprised to see names from british telly, I mean, Sean Slater from Eastenders, that is quite random!

Does anyone know what role David Tennant was rumoured/auditioning for and if he's still a possibility to get a role?

 

[Spider-Who?]

William Marshal, Robert Duke of Gloucester, John of Gaunt, Sir Francis Drake, John Churchill the Duke of Marlborough, The Duke of Wellington, Horatio Nelson and General Montgomery were all great military leaders beloved by their men, but the troops didn't confuse their personality cults with aspects of royalty.

One word: Caesar.

Sure, not anglo-saxon, but a perfect example of a great military leader turned ruler with the full support of his army and most of the populace.

Aside from that, you're listing people whose countries had established rulers and kings, where in the case of Gondor, they had what could be considered little more than a seat warmer - deranged and useless while the state of Gondor slowly crumbled; a perfect situation for a takeover - had Boromir wished it.

 

[regwec]

Caeser was never a king, he just declared imperium and had himself made consul for life. His snatching of power was a result of a curious quirk of the Roman Republic- that no standing army could be stationed in Latium, and that generals would have to sacrifice their commands before returning home. He famously "crossed the Rubicon" with his legions, and was able to stage a coup. The role of the legions in choosing civilian rulers is similar to the role of the Pakistani army. It is more a matter of a conflict between the civil state and the military institutions, though it does create circumstances where charismatic chancers like Julius Caeser could risk all and win all.

I think Aragorn might in some way be influenced by the historical Alfred the Great, who ruled his remaining followers as a king in exile, before coming out of hiding and reconquering his kingdom from the vikings.

In any case, I have agreed that PJ might have deliberately wanted to stress Boromir's potential as a leader. My point is that this shouldn't have been allowed to dilute Aragorn's kingly qualities, and that a clear difference exists between the self-assured, regal Aragorn of the books; and the doubt-ridden Aragorn played by Viggo.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Caeser was never a king, he just declared imperium and had himself made consul for life.

I'm well aware of Caesar's ascension to power. At this point you're just splitting hairs - my point was that Caesar went from a successful general to emperor (or for the sake of the argument, "head of government"); and the loyalty of his soldiers was a huge factor in that because if they hadn't been loyal to him and his aim, they would have stayed on the correct side of the rubicon.

 

[regwec]

I'm not splitting heirs, I am enjoying a conversation.

In any case, there is a difference between a king and a consul because the former role comes with some sacred baggage, while the latter is a politician. I suppose Caeser managed to acquire that, too, by having himself made Pontifex Maximus, but it didn't come with the job of consul for life. It is interesting that the imperial cult that began under Octavian sought to appropriate some sacred baggage of its own, but emperors were still never hereditary as a matter of policy. A king's only power is in his blood, I suppose. That's a strange thing.

 

[Spider-Who?]

I'm not splitting heirs, I am enjoying a conversation.

In any case, there is a difference between a king and a consul because the former role comes with some sacred baggage, while the latter is a politician. I suppose Caeser managed to acquire that, too, by having himself made Pontifex Maximus, but it didn't come with the job of consul for life. It is interesting that the imperial cult that began under Octavian sought to appropriate some sacred baggage of its own, but emperors were still never hereditary as a matter of policy. A king's only power is in his blood, I suppose. That's a strange thing.

right, but I never said that Caesar was a king. I said he's a :

...perfect example of a great military leader turned ruler

and you started your post by saying "Caesar is not a king" in an attempt to try and invalidate my point, when in fact i did not say nor suggest that.

If you want to turn discussion into a more specific debate, that's fine, but if you're attempting to jump into a conversation with a needle, when we're clearly speaking in generalities, we're not going to get anywhere.

former role comes with some sacred baggage, while the latter is a politician.

Not necessarily. Emperors of all cultures were well known for claiming to be gods in an effort to solidify their rule.

emperors were still never hereditary as a matter of policy.

I'm not saying you're wrong, and I'll be the first to admit that I am not a historian, but I am passionate about Roman history and I can name several instances where emperors were connected by heritage. And outside of the Roman thought, emperors of other cultures tried to keep rule within their family (dynasties) just like kings. And just like kings, this succeeded and failed.

Typically speaking, once an empire was created, the succeeding emperors were not elected officials, but handed the throne from the former emperor. Julius (naturally), Augustus, and Tiberius are the only Roman emperors that come to mind who didn't actually inherit the title from a family member or adopted family.

 

[regwec]

you started your post by saying "Caesar is not a king" in an attempt to try and invalidate my point, when in fact i did not say nor suggest that.

It wasn't an attempt to invalidate your point, it was an attempt to clarify the inherent difference between kingship and political power. Kingship is innate within an individual; political power isn't.

If you want to turn discussion into a more specific debate, that's fine, but if you're attempting to jump into a conversation with a needle, when we're clearly speaking in generalities, we're not going to get anywhere.

I'm more than happy to be as general as you like, but that that shouldn't impede either of us from including points of detail or accuracy.

Not necessarily. Emperors of all cultures were well known for claiming to be gods in an effort to solidify their rule.

Here is where I think my hair-splitting is important. Caeser managed to combine sacral power and then political power by becoming first Pontifex Maximus and then Consul. That was an unusual step. But consuls did not immediately inherit both; it is only with the development of Octavian/Augustus' imperial cult that the political and spiritual aspects of the imperator became formalised. In this way, the Romans were really aping notions of barbarian kingship, straying from the Aegean influence, and reaching for something like the power of the Pharoahs, whom they had always envied.

A king's power is innate; in his blood, whether he wants it or not. A sitting king can be supplanted by another with a blood claim, but the deposed king's blood will still make him a threat.

I'm not saying you're wrong, and I'll be the first to admit that I am not a historian, but I am passionate about Roman history and I can name several instances where emperors were connected by heritage. And outside of the Roman thought, emperors of other cultures tried to keep rule within their family (dynasties) just like kings. And just like kings, this succeeded and failed.

Typically speaking, once an empire was created, the succeeding emperors were not elected officials, but handed the throne from the former emperor. Julius (naturally), Augustus, and Tiberius are the only Roman emperors that come to mind who didn't actually inherit the title from a family member or adopted family.

Sure; it's human nature to try to hand an inheritance to your children. As I have said, I do not disagree that the imperial cult grew to resemble something like sacral kingship, and blood and lineage inevitably becomes a part of that. But that was a development of Roman history, while the Germanic royal lines which medieval Christian kings hailed from were established along quasi-sacred lines, into the depths of pre-history.

To bring this back to LOTR, this is seen in Aragorn's possession of the "king's touch", to heal the sick. This is a genuine tradition in English folklore- Samuel Johnson was brought to Queen Anne for her healing touch as an infant, so people still took the notion seriously during the Enlightenment. It's probably the best example, along with his long life, of Aragorn's innate hereditary kingly qualities.

 

[Boom]

While we're on the subject of Aragorn, I think Mads Mikkelsen would have nailed the role to the wall.

 

[itsthebatman]

It wasn't an attempt to invalidate your point, it was an attempt to clarify the inherent difference between kingship and political power. Kingship is innate within an individual; political power isn't.


I'm more than happy to be as general as you like, but that that shouldn't impede either of us from including points of detail or accuracy.


Here is where I think my hair-splitting is important. Caeser managed to combine sacral power and then political power by becoming first Pontifex Maximus and then Consul. That was an unusual step. But consuls did not immediately inherit both; it is only with the development of Octavian/Augustus' imperial cult that the political and spiritual aspects of the imperator became formalised. In this way, the Romans were really aping notions of barbarian kingship, straying from the Aegean influence, and reaching for something like the power of the Pharoahs, whom they had always envied.

A king's power is innate; in his blood, whether he wants it or not. A sitting king can be supplanted by another with a blood claim, but the deposed king's blood will still make him a threat.



Sure; it's human nature to try to hand an inheritance to your children. As I have said, I do not disagree that the imperial cult grew to resemble something like sacral kingship, and blood and lineage inevitably becomes a part of that. But that was a development of Roman history, while the Germanic royal lines which medieval Christian kings hailed from were established along quasi-sacred lines, into the depths of pre-history.

To bring this back to LOTR, this is seen in Aragorn's possession of the "king's touch", to heal the sick. This is a genuine tradition in English folklore- Samuel Johnson was brought to Queen Anne for her healing touch as an infant, so people still took the notion seriously during the Enlightenment. It's probably the best example, along with his long life, of Aragorn's innate hereditary kingly qualities.

Did you study this at college reg, or is ancient/medieval history just an interest of yours?

 

[redhawk23]

I'm not splitting heirs, I am enjoying a conversation.

In any case, there is a difference between a king and a consul because the former role comes with some sacred baggage, while the latter is a politician. I suppose Caeser managed to acquire that, too, by having himself made Pontifex Maximus, but it didn't come with the job of consul for life. It is interesting that the imperial cult that began under Octavian sought to appropriate some sacred baggage of its own, but emperors were still never hereditary as a matter of policy. A king's only power is in his blood, I suppose. That's a strange thing.

But thats the thing, while in Rome having military power and religious backing only earned you the status of consul, in other civilizations that was the very definition of kingship.

 

[redhawk23]

I think it is necessary to take this discussion back to where we started. An arguement of whether or not Boromir could be considered "kingly."

I think they respond to him as a victorious war hero. Kingliness comes with another set of qualities, which Boromir rarely seems to aspire to.

.

In one of your later posts, not to take it out of context, you explained what qualities made Aragorn kingly in the books.

self-assured, regal

I'm not sure how you're defining regal, but Boromir is nothing if not self assured.

 

[LOBO3315a]

Almost arrogant. To the point he loses his regality. The scene where he tries to put the hilt of Narsil back on the dias after cutting his finger, drops it, then walks away comes to mind.