No...Thorin, Dwalin, and Balin are all missing.

For our resident Elrond fan, Screen Shot from the production video thing that shows him and Bilbo on set.....there you go, Mith.

*wub* lovely Hugo in a new frock... splendid, thank you. There are other Hugo fans you know.... and I know I am not alone in my appreciation of Mr Armitage even if he be blighted by a beard..... :Merisu:

Yes, but you're the only one I can think of for sure off the top of my head...and I wouldn't want to confuse anybody with another person. :p

Which one is Armitage? I seldom pay attention to who the actor actually is....

I'm still hoping Cirdan is going to be cast, if the do the White Council...he's named as a member in the books. :(

I would say I completely agree with this...but Folwren has a point. I mean, I'm gorgeous and I'm as dwarfy as they come. ;)

He does not have enough beard though and he looks waaaaaay too much like a hipster.

I know dwarves are supposed to have bigger ears...but is it just me or did they perhaps exaggerate that just a touch? On Nori and Kili in particular it looks jarring in my eyes, like the ears are not really attached to the actors and are just sloppily photoshopped on...

Edit...

And what is with all the stupid looking swords..?

Indeed. They seem to favour axes in the books.
Actually, I always wondered how Thorin could effectively have wielded a sword made for the tall Noldor, but that's another matter. ;)

Yes...that's a very good question. Of course, Orcrist, Glamdring, and Sting never made that much sense to me anyways. A glowing blue sword is a good way to tell you that orcs are near - it's also a good way to tell the orcs where you are. :p Assuming that Orcrist was a two handed sword like Glamdring, it's very odd for Thorin to be able to wield it well, since in my (admittedly limited) experience with swords, two handed swords tend to be longer....of course, who knows what went on in the makers mind. Or maybe the original owner of it was very very short for an elf. :p

Here's two more...
 

Balin and Dwalin...
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/07/15/...#ixzz1SAJeGrDI

Encaitaire is another but she is seldom here alas. And I rather suspect I was a Hugo fan before she was born :eek:

Richard Armitage is Thorin and Lalaith and Lalwende are also fans....

You might call me a fan...I liked him in North & South.

I have that on DVD but I havne't seen it yet (I saw the final episode only when broadcast) I need to see if I can get teh silly DVD player to work again.... He was very good in "Spooks"(MI-5) - well in the first series - in teh second they completely reinvented the character and I was miffed. I just think he is pure Numenorean and it seems bizarre he is playing a dwarf.

Is it my imagination or does Bombur look like Barliman Butterbur?

Methinks, Mr. Jackson should revisit the trilogy and pay particular attention to Gimli so he can remember what dwarves are supposed to look like. :rolleyes:

I guess Thorin's bright blue cloak is a no-go .... :p

He probably wielded it two-handed, similar to a Zweihänder.

You'd think the mere length of the sword would have made it cumbersome for a dwarf, though. That would explain why they mostly seem to have used axes and mattocks.

Odd I didn't mention this before, but wouldn't it be funny if PJ actually gave the Dwarves blue and yellow beards - the way Tolkien described them? :Merisu:

And finally...Thorin
 

TORn gets world exclusive reveal on first picture of Thorin Oakenshield (and Goblin- cleaver Orcrist!)
http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2011...d-and-orcrist/

Looks like Robert Downey Jr's Battlefield Earth audition.

Ugh.

Thorin looks like everything that's wrong with PJ's interpretation of Tolkien's work.

I'm afraid we won't get a cinematic adaption of The Hobbit, which is basically a book for children, but nonetheless has some more subtle, tender ideas and messages which can be moving for adults as well. (Just read the deathbed scene at the end of the novel).

Instead, judging by our previous experiences with Jackson, we will get a nauseating blend of angsty fanfiction, various scenes from other works of Tolkien which just don't belong in The Hobbit (and just don't provide enough material for a fleshed-out narrative - any scenes about the White Council will need completely new dialogues, and we all know how good the PJ team is in that department :rolleyes:), as well as an inappropriate emphasis on the martial aspects of the plot. (PJ's dwarves just don't look like they're about to go on a journey where weapons are only of secondary importance.)

Basically, we'll get a gritty reboot, and the ridiculous images of Thorin, Dwalin and especially Kili prove this in my opinion.

By the way, is there a piece of a hammer sticking in Bifur's head?

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images...nthebrain.jpg/

Hi! Welcome to the site. Did you find it while looking for a place to vent about PJ's movies, and not be accused of being several unflattering terms (I got called a B**** the other day on another site....it was rather funny. :p) If so, you're in the right place. :D

As far as your final question goes....yes. And I have no idea why. :( Idiotic costume design...come on, I know Middle-Earth wasn't exactly modern day medical techniques, but I'm pretty sure leaving hammers in somebody's head sounded like a bad idea say, the day after the elves awoke.

from what I've seen on ToRN the Dwarves look far too harsh,
unlike The Hobbit Thorin & Co. How they could ever work with
the slapstick comedy of surprising Bilbo (and then Beorn) stretches
credulity.

And that's a good point about dialogue needed in the White Council.

This again is an example of CT's extremism in non-cooperation with PJ
has hurt the movies (he could have, both through general influence and in
rewrites, have ameliorated some of the worst aspects of PJ's films,
while bolstering his strenghts---particularly cinematography).

Yes, if CT had wanted to, he probably could have had great influence over the films, and stopped some of the idiotic decisions. One of the reasons* - and I'm pretty sure everybody knows I'm a huge fan of them by now - that I like both McKellen and Lee is that they are fans of the books and not just actors reading the script. I believe that somewhere on one of the EE discs, PJ mentions McKellen mentioning to him when things got too far from the book (and if that's true, I shudder to think what kind of movie we would have had without him.).

Edited to add: Just started reading McKellen's Hobbit blog. Apparently, Gandalf's silver scarf and black boots are part of the costume. :D

*You all would be here all day if I listed all the reasons. They're just cool men.

No he couldn't. Unless it is written into the deal authors (or their estates) have no power whatsoever. JK Rowling had power because apart from anything else she hadn't finished the books and could say it compromised the plot.

The other year there was an adaptation of Jodi Picoult 's "My sister's keeper" - they completely changed the ending in a life or death manner and she had no influence whatsoever.

They would have dismissed any criticism of CRT reference his lack of knowledge of screenwriting and movie making. The would have not given an inch. They might have liked his blessing but they wouldn't have wanted any input beyond clearance to use material in UT. CRT is 86 years old and has given us 30 years of editing his father's papers, I hope he spends what time is left to him in pursuits he enjoys. Why should he waste it on something he isn't interested in and can't control.

Lee is a genuine fan, McKellen has been a bit disparaging of Tolkien in some interviews.

He could have played the public. If he hadn't of sounded so anti-movies completely, he could have used public pressure on PJ. You just have to be smart and manipulative. CT is a brilliant man, but his PR skills need work. After all...it's so much fun to try and make the public turn to your side. Politics and the movie industry have a lot in common...

So then you make a deal....I'll let you use this, but you have to do this, change that, and do this. And you get it written in a legally binding contract. Then, if they don't do it, you sue them and take all their hard earned by breaking the contract money for yourself. And yes, I really am like that in real life.

If he isn't interested in it, then why did he try to sue to stop it? Or give any newspaper interviews about it? Though, I agree...if he wants nothing to do with it, then that's his well earned right.

At least he's read the books - I'm not sure how many of the other actors have. I haven't read the interviews, so I'm not able to comment on how disparaging he might have been. I used to be a huge fan of Harry Potter - didn't mean I worshiped Rowling blindly, and I did get on message boards and comment on her mistakes (math is not a strong point of hers...) Not that I'm entirely sure how you can be a little disparaging....I was always thought that disparaging meant regard as being worth almost nothing.

1, Christopher Tolkien has lived quietly in France for many years. He does not seek publicity and doesn't even use his own name when travelling to avoid it. Why you think a man already in his seventies would want to start to play media games I don't know. He is neither a politician nor a film maker, he is a scholar.

2, Christopher Tolkien did not make the film deal. His father did so because basically he had a major cash flow problem due to the punitive tax regime in force in the UK in the sixties which meant he had to pay in tax a huge proportion of his earnings before he actually received them. 2a, This isn't about you. He has not sold film rights to any of the works "under his watch" and there is zero chance he will. Adam may feel differently should he take up the mantle as seems likely and he may well have the inclination and nous to set up rowling like controls.

3, I don't think Christopher has given an interview for a very long time - maybe since the Silmarillion - there is a video on youtube - on anything. He did respond to a list of questions regarding the Children of Hurin. The estate sued to stop the film because of a breach of contract. When Tolkien sold the rights for a relatively modest sum there was a clause that he or his estate was due a portion of the profits. These weren't paid and that voided the contract There has been a settlement of an undisclosed amount though the Tolkien Trust accounts give a lot of clues. The Tolkien Trust gives many hundred of thousands of pounds to educational and humanitarian charities worldwide.

4, The interviews I saw gave me the impression that McKellen didn't rate Tolkien as a writer. But then I don't rate McKellen as Gandalf,
Rowling certainly didn't take much care with her Astronomy.

I can't believe Christopher Tolkien is being slagged off for the films failings as well as everything else. He couldn't get more stick if he had burnt every last scrap of manuscript. Absolutely beggars belief... what do you want from the man? Blood?

Well, apart from the fact that it doesn't apply in this case, since the rights had already been sold, those kind of tactics are much more likely to result in the film not being made at all, or being delayed indefinitely, rather than in improving it. And that's if you (as a hypothetical novelist) were able to negotiate a deal like that in the first place– which is not all that easy. I mean, film people don't like an author trying to drive the production from the back seat. I can't say I blame them, either.

I wasn't saying it was - I was referring to the fact that that would be unlike him, because it is a rather b***** stand to take. I didn't make that clear enough, that it would take somebody like me, who really enjoys it to do that. As I said in the third quote, he does have the right to stop due to all the hard work he's put in.

I got slightly confused - it was not an interview, but rather a statement he released. While I cannot find the AP report itself, which had just the statement, and little of the speculation BBC includes, here is the BBC report in which he says he believes that "My own position is that 'The Lord Of The Rings' is peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form." You don't release a statement saying that if you have no feelings.

And I can't believe that you have somehow managed to change a I wish he wanted to because it would have been a better movie into blaming him for the mistakes - I leave full blame for the mistakes on PJ. All I said was that I wished Christopher Tolkien had a more active role, because I believe it could have and would have been a better movie. I can understand why he didn't, because he is an old man. I could have easily said that I had wished J.R.R. Tolkien was still around, and would you be jumping on me for that? Because I do. I honestly wish a movie had been made while he was alive, so that he could have reacted to it. I could have said that I wished that J.R.R. Tolkien had a stricter contract sold (which I do) that left limits on what the filmmaker's could do. Do you now think that I blame a dead man for what went wrong with the movies? There's a difference between blaming somebody for want went wrong, and wishing they were there to keep it from getting that bad.

I can say I blame them...if you don't want to stay true to the book, don't adapt a book for a script. And certainly don't claim you're adapting a book, and then go 180 degrees opposite of a book. Because to me, that shows disrespect for the book and the author. Perhaps I'm weird, but I don't think this movie or LotR will be/was an adaption of the books. I think they're a sort of glorified fanfic script, because they're not true to the book. I don't watch movies frequently, and if going to see an adaption of a book, I don't want to see dwarves with hammers hanging out of their heads, or every warrior from Lothlorien get slaughtered in a battle. The worst moments in the movies are when the script has no backing from Tolkien's writings.

Very well, but I think you still implied at least (through your wish, even if unintended), that Christopher Tolkien 'should' have done something that he didn't, something that only possibly might have changed the films into some measure of better, which judging by the reactions on the web, 'better' for a film being quite subjective in the first place.

Not that you said otherwise, but Christopher Tolkien, at any age, is also entitled to his opinion about the suitability of the book being adapted for film, and we have no reason to not believe him. Plus, as you're talking about mights and maybes here, any involvement would also maybe (which I think likely actually) result in the filmmakers claiming (something like): 'and we had Christopher Tolkien's input too' generalizing in the extreme and giving their films a false sense of 'authorization' even in some measure.

And considering how poor I think these adaptations are (and I obviously cannot speak for Christopher Tolkien), 'better' would need to be significantly better, possibly starting with rewrites on page one, and a wholly different take on certain characters, tone, focus, action, 'modernization' and humor.

What if CJRT agreed with me after seeing the film treatment (as I'm sure he would) ;)

Let's say after months of only hopeful work Christopher Tolkien gave us 'closer to Tolkien' here or there and arguably made the films better, but if the end sum is still significantly poor as far as 'faithful' is concerned, then I think CJRT would certainly be hailed as a contributor, yet in this possible scenario, would feel that he basically failed in a larger context in any case. Even if betterness is achieved (according to enough opinions) there's no guarantee of putting out a work that Christopher Tolkien would not mind having his name attached to -- which I think shirly would happen if the filmmakers changed even only a number of small details because of his advice.



I'm not in the camp of 'never try' to better something even if things seem unlikely, but afterall this is a film (hyperbole alert) not world hunger, and I think your wish places Christopher Tolkien into a potentially unwanted situation; and it's not the first film based on Tolkien's work, won't be the last, and certainly isn't alone among various interpretations from various fields of art.


Ask a man somewhat advanced in years, who already doesn't think the book is suitable for film (for his own reasons) to drop his work on The Children of Hurin (it would seem, and at least for a time), to try to sway some director about the latest film adaptation because it might be better in some measure (if they listen to him), but not necessarily faithful in sum to the work he truly cares about?

Well, I try to never read implieds into anything anybody says on a forum - for one thing, tone of voice (which is crucial to how I communicate....I have different tones of voice for almost everything, and my friends very quickly catch on to them.), facial expressions, and personalities don't translate well - I am on of those people who likes what ifs, and I tend to comment on them.

And I agree with him - quite frankly, I think the Hobbit, judging by facts and pictures so far released by PJ, is one of those films that at the least, can not be adapted by any film maker who is a slave to the current perception of public wants (and judging by Tauriel and the inclusion of Legolas, I believe PJ by now is one. As I said at the end of my post, I believe that filmmaker's who adapt things have a responsibility to keep them as close to the original as possible. If and when PJ fails this, he deserves scorn, IMO.

Don't they already do this to an extent? I remember there being a hoopla on other quarters of the internet about how they got Alan Lee and the others to work on the film, so it was automatically a good adaption. As it stands, they've managed to turn it into a poor oppressed by the author's son situation. On here, we all know the work Christopher has done. Go on some of the other forums, and you'll find people saying that he's done nothing and is oppressing poor PJ. I can't say that I agree with Christopher Tolkien on all counts, but he ranks higher then PJ for me, just because when he messes something up (like Gil-galad's heritage) he doesn't shoot off about how it improves it, he fesses up and admits it. PJ one the other hand, tends to oh it improved it and made it so much better.

Agreed - which is why I said that a contract would have been a must in that situation. I don't blame him for not wanting to get into it, especially since even with a contract, there are never assurances of not getting screwed over anyways. Personally, I agree Christopher - I don't think the books are well suited to screen. Not as long as people prefer hot women and action, over plots and characterization.

As an aside, you'll find that I don't like most of the interpretations - I recently worked on a Silm guide for a website, and had to track down artwork for it. By the time we were all finished, we were all nearly insane from that art. :p That's an aside that really has nothing to do with CT or the films...just, don't search DA if you're not prepared to run across some truly horrible "interpretations" of his works.

I don't see how my wish places anybody anywhere - it was a pondering of a hypothetical, which has no real power. As far as I know, I am not the goddess of movie making or script writing. :p

The worst thing about the dwarves thus far:

1) Thorin's lack of a mighty beard, instead he gets a nice trimmed up goatee. They are trying to give him the same bearing as Aragorn, this is obvious, but it just shouldn't be done. He's not exactly that kind of character. Instead, he looks more like a man from Dunland.

2) Bifur's head. Is that really an axe bit stuck in it? Seriously? I hope that it's a joke.

3) Kili looks entirely too much like an Elf. Although I'm not too surprised at this. You all knew it was coming - the attractive one of the bunch. FotR had Legolas, this company will have Kili. Sad but true. Nothing against the decisions to cast a good looking guy, because maybe he's perfect for the role. We'll see.

Other than that, I really don't have too many qualms with the rest of the dwarves. My namesake looks great and I don't mind the weird hat at all. Bombur is okay, I can see why some would dislike him but I really don't mind his design much. Nori's hair has to go but besides that he's fine. Dori and Ori look good to me, and Balin, Gloin, and Oin obviously look like dwarves. Fili looks too Elfish. They're (B, G, & O) probably the closest to Tolkien's dwarves in image, I would think.

Well I shall have to post with more caution then :)

This is what you posted about a contract: 'So then you make a deal....I'll let you use this, but you have to do this, change that, and do this. And you get it written in a legally binding contract. (...)

What is Christopher going to let Jackson use in exchange for any real say? Jackson already has what he needs to do a film based on The Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit. And you seem to agree that for Christopher Tolkien to put himself in this position he must be given a lot of power with respect to creativity and content, power that I don't think anyone imagines he's really going to get.

Possibly getting some things changed is no assurance of a faithful sum total in any case, so realistically why go there if all you can be assured of is the Jackson PR machine shouting the most famed Tolkien name now alive as an advisor.


Yet even wishes might contain unfair (from a given person's opinion) criticism.

Caution is something I've learned is a must on the internet - especially since nobody, as far as I know, has yet to develop mind reading powers (if anybody has, let me know...I'm interested. Might be useful dealing with people on the HP board I frequent...I'm still not entirely sure what one of them meant. There were a lot of 1s, !s, 2s, 4s, and a general lack of letters...)

I believe that at some point PJ or somebody else made a statement that either said or heavily hinted that they wished they could have used some material from UT - that was what I was referring to that CT had that they didn't.

Yes, I do agree....I have no wish to see Christopher Tolkien get taken advantage of by PJ. While I might be critical of Christopher Tolkien at times, as regards some of his decisions about his father's works and papers, I very much admire his dedication to his father's legacy and the true love he has for it, and would never want him to be compromised by the Hollywood greed machine. Love for the books is one thing that I think PJ has forgotten and left out of his movies....and in my dream of a utopia Christopher would have that power, but sadly my utopia doesn't exist yet, much like my title of queen of the world. :p

I can see where you're coming from with that....interpretation of one's words is one of the best and worst things about writing and posting anything. ;) I appreciate you and Mith calling me on mine, because it's forced me to clarify some things, and consider how my words might have seemed to other people. So, thanks. :)

Check out PJ's newest video blog!

AWESOME TEASERS...

PJ's new vid!

Even if Jackson said this, in my opinion some material from Unfinished Tales is not even close to bargaining material for Christopher Tolkien to expect the level of creative control I think he would want; personally I doubt total use of Unfinished Tales would bargain him anywhere near 'power enough' to confidently attach his name to a film project.

If he were interested in making a film that is! which he is not.


Rowling was in a very different position here.

:eek: That did it! I'm not watching the movie!!!

Or maybe I am. >.<

Give us food... or else.

Definitely true, if she couldn't count how many years Dennis Creevey spent in Hogwarts before he came to the "DA" meeting in the Hog's Head...

Sorry. I couldn't resist. I will keep HP out of this discussion from now on.

[QUOTE]I think some of the Dwarves look a little fake. Thorin should looks too thin (and too young), Kili looks like a human (must have shaved :Merisu:), Ori looks computer-generated and odd and Bofur looks like a coal-digger from Bree. I can honestly say, though, that I like Bombur, Bifur, Balin, Oin and Gloin. I wish they had kept their hoods and their gold and silver belts, though.

But honestly, sister, I don't think Thorin is quite that bad >.<

I'm dreading what PJ is gonna do, but I still want to watch the movie :rolleyes:

I have to say that the photos of the dwarves that have been released are rather over-polished, air-brushed and photoshopped (Kili has seven fingers on his left hand!) in comparison to seeing the actors in costume on Jackson's third production video-blog, as linked to by Bofur, previously:

In almost all cases the dwarves look better...but really don't like the sawn-off axe in Bifur's forehead - had hoped it had been photoshopped into the posed photo for a joke...:rolleyes:

At least they seem to be having fun on the set.

That video-blog was great. I did enjoy seeing them on set, and they looked better than in the pictures.

-- Foley

Baruk Klingon
 

Is it just me or does Thorin look like Gowron, the Klingon chancellor with the big scary eyes?

Qapla'!
 

It's not just you. This face screams for some forehead make-up.

EDIT: Also, couldn't resist:
http://forum.barrowdowns.com/[IMG]ht...e/Bomburix.jpghttp://i951.photobucket.com/albums/a...e/Bomburix.jpg

I found more pictures:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/mediaindex

This one is the most interesting, as it features all 13 Dwarves:

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm107462400/tt0903624

Edit: I just realised that a few pictures have already been posted on this thread.