Elves and Hobbits!
 

Okay, there have been lots of threads smashing the movies and picking them apart. I'm not so much against that because I've taken part and would have rather liked to see them more like the books. There were several things that might have been changed to make them better, and yet there were also many things that I don't think could have been more well done.

Now that I've made an introduction that gives you (or me) little idea about what I really want to talk about, I'll get into it. I only have two things to comment on at the time being...Elves and Hobbits - as my title suggests.

I think that the elves were rather well done. While watching the FotR again this evening for goodness knows how many times, I noticed particularly Galadriel and how she appeared in the Mirror scene. I think that part's awesome. But what I noticed tonight for maybe the first time was the light. Behind her and about her was a light that came from herself, I guess. I wondered if it was just a light there, but Frodo didn't have it, of course, and I thought that was the coolest thing!

The hobbits, I'm sorry to say, weren't spectacular. Out of all of them, I think Sam was the best done (now, now people, it's not because he's my favorite, though you all might think so, seeing my posts on that favorite hobbit thread). The others, Frodo especially, don't really look, or even talk, like Hobbits. Of course, they grow on you and you end up loving them by the end of the trilogy, but I really wish they could have tried to find others. (I take back the 'weren't spectacular' because Sam, at least, was.)

What do you all think of the elves and hobbits? Do you completely disagree with me, or only half way disagree with me? Or do you agree entirely? That would certainly be interestingly and wonderfully encouraging.

(If anyone wants to add wizards in here, I'd go for that. :D )

If you are asking for how Jackson portrayed Elves and Hobbits in the movies I think these are things he did fairly well on (we'll say he passed :p). I'm thinking from an overall perspective, there are some characters that I did not like the portrayal of and wish they were changed...

For the Elves it was mostly just Legolas and Elrond. I just don't like how Jackson shows Legolas as being this superhuman (or do I mean superelf?) that does cool slides and is "The most awesomest bst boeman like EVER." I can understand heightening Legolas' role a bit (for example the cave troll in Moria), but Jackson just takes it too far with the shield and trunk slides, and the horse mounting.

Elrond I just didn't like his portrayal at all throughout the entire movies. Rivendell is supposed to be the last homely house west of the Misty Mountains and Elrond didn't make it appear too homely. I just got like he wanted Aragorn to fail so Arwen wouldn't marry him and he hated everyone except his elves.

For Hobbits I can't go into how badly Frodo was portrayed. Frodo is a character that shows much bravery throughout the books and he's reduced to a stumbling, bumbling fool that constantly rolls his eyes. But, I did like all the other hobbits (I loved Ian Holm as Bilbo and Sean Astin as Sam).

In my opinion Sam was the best portrayal in the entire movie. Overall with regard to the hobbits I thought they did fairly well. I myself would have liked a bit more mirth making though. I thought Bilbo was done well as was Pippin and Merry. Frodo was a bit of a let down for similar reasons as Boromir stated.

Elves on the other hand I did not like much at all. I guess I could say I found them a bit too fruity for my tastes. I know they are mystic and noble but I also think elves are great warriors and they seemed too...well too fruity like I said. That being said Galadriel was by far my favorite elf and Cate did an exceptional job in that role.

Physically the elves and hobbits were well done, the chief
foolishness was Elrond's portrayal. It was silly to portray
Agent Elrond as a vitual "man and Aragorn hater", since he and
his children were half-elven, his brother the first king of
Numenor and Aragorn was a descendent of Elros. While it
would have taken (only) a modicum of movie explanation,
I thought ignoring the half-elven theme in LOTR in the movie
was an error.

Oh, and how about a bit of sexism in the movie? Only showing Arwen's son and
not her two daughters. :)

Galadriel and Celeborn were well-done (Celeborn a bit redeemed in the
extended dvd) , except for Galadriel's over the top bit with the ring
temptation. It would have been better played understated (the same for
Gandalf with Bilbo), but then that's not PJs forte.
However, I've been listening to LOTR tapes driving, and there are
subtle bits of faithfulness to the books in the movies I've previously
missed.
Also about Kate Blanchett. One of the reasons I consider FOTR to be by far
the best of the three movies is her opening narration.

As much as her continual appearance in the films began to get on my nerves I did think that Arwen was quite well done. The other Elves I found a bit bland (such as Arwen's guard person) or over the top (Elrond, Galadriel). The general appearance of the Elves was done well, they were tall and Cate Blanchett especially was very ethereal looking. I was very disappointed in the portrayal of Elrond to whom PJ did a great disservice. Elrond is supposed to be high and wise and dignified and they turn him into a jealous caricature.

The Hobbits were not as I had imagined them in the books at all. I had always had this vision of giant hamsters that walked on two legs - well not exactly but that's the best I can desribe them :rolleyes: Sam I think I saw as being reasonably close to my imagination as he was nicely plump and Pippin at least had the personality perfect. Frodo I must say I was never keen on so with that the portrayal was very accurate!

the thing i regretted not seeing enough in the movies was the hobbit height point of reference. Very hard to do admittedly, but seeing how PJ dealt with Gollum proved to me it was doable. Lots of clever perspective tricks - yes - but (to me) not enough - and it was obvious when the little people stand ins were shot. Plenty of close ups or away shots, and plenty of hobbit only scenes, but not enough reference shots that portrayed that hobbits were not just people who were height challenged - but hobbits - 3-4 footers.

I thought hobbits were done awesomely in the movies. The author of this thread made the point that Sam's the only one of the main four that acts or talks like a hobbit. I would say that that is accurate, both accurate for you to say and accurate for PJ to portray. Sam is the quintessinal (sp?) hobbit; the others are quite unusual for hobbits, particularly Frodo. Because of their high ancestry, and because of the unusual amount of knowledge they have about the world outside.

Elves were well done overall, I thought, but they seemed a bit too serious. Sure, Legolas provided the other end of Gimli's slapstick comedy (e.g., "Shall I describe it to you..."), and Elrond cracked a smile a grand total of one time, but most of the time the Elves seemed too heavy and serious. I mean, I know, these are weighty times, but c'mon. Sam did say in Book Two that "some [are] as merry as children." But again, overall I thought it was well done.

My opinion is the twisted version of yours Folwren. I think the Hobbits were brilliant. But the Elves missed the mark.

There's a temptation to imagine the Hobbits as childish and I think Jackson and co. avoided this very well. The Hobbits were serious and chirpy and all of that good stuff but they never became a joke or a parody.

The Elves, on the other hand, were a bit of a parody. Now I'll be the first to admit that Elves are hard to become; their 'otherworldliness' is not something which many (any?) people possess. As a result they just kinda floated about followed by odd music and strange lighting and looking so serious! Again, very hard to capture, but I didn't think the Elves were particularly good at all. They just came across as snooty men, really. Awesome hairstyles though! :D

And that was about Hobbits and Elves in general, not specific characters.

I think that's what disapointed me. You didn't get to actually see that they were that small. You did at times, but it wasn't remdined of you constantly. The part when Boromir stops Frodo at the Bridge when Gandalf falls and picked him up and carries him off was really, really well done, and is that the sort of thing you wanted more of?

Well, no...if you read the books carefully, you'll find that all four of them were very much hobbits when they left. Even Frodo. There's a certain character to them that goes beyond even the special shooting of the camera or spacing, that they didn't get many times in the movies. Of course, as the book goes on that changes, and really only Sam is left the most unaffected, but they are completely 'hobbit', if you follow me, at the beginning...and they continue to be until later in the TT.

Does any of that make sense? I'm trying to think on an empty stomach, and I find it's not working too well.

As for elves...no, they weren't all protrayed like the elves in the books, I won't argue with that, especially now that you've brought to mind Sam's quote. But I still liked 'em. :D

-Folwren

Edit: Now that Eomer's replied, I've got to say something more.

I might've guessed you'd say just about the opposite. I'm finding most people do in this matter. ;)

I think it's the childishness in the hobbits that I miss most. If that's how it appears in the book, then I'll bet that's how Tolkien meant it to be and that is how their character was supposed to be formed and that's how he shaped them. Being able to write some myself, I know a little about character developement, and you don't just write a thousand and more pages about people and make them something they're not supposed be. For PJ to take the childlike character out of them makes them...short men and little else.

YES exactly. IMO, the acting and portrayal was above par for the hobbits. It was the visual representation that I was trying to describe. I thought more emphasis should have been placed on the visual of what a hobbit looked like compared to men, dwarves, etc. Even hobbit POV would have helped. But for me - I needed to see more of those costly Council of Elrond shots where it showed that yes - a hobbit in a group of regular sized folks - ahhh - hobbits me sees :)

edit - as for the elves: Much harder for my minds eye to cast than hobbits. overall adequate casting and presentation. a little fru fru for my taste on the wardrobe but again - adequate. I like the effect of light in the eyes and faces. And if I can ever forget the overly done negative special effects on Galadrial in that one scene, I would even say that Blanchette did a decent job... but geez I cant.... :eek:

The Hobbits' heads were too small in relation to their bodies. I see them as having normal human-sized heads but shorter bodies. To me, this is really obvious in the "Fellowship line-up" at Rivendell, where their heads are tiny in comparison to the Men (and Wizard) in the Group. But this would have been rather difficult to remedy without using CGI for them most of the way through.

As for the Elves, why do they all have to have girlie-hair ( ;) :p ), pouty lips and high cheek-bones? Effeminate does not, in my opinion, equal "other-worldliness". At least Elrond didn't look like a chorus-line extra.

Interesting discussion, folks.

I think a lot of our disappointment has to do with cutting-room decisions, and the time limits placed on movies. PJ shot lots and lots of footage that never made it anywhere near a DVD.

I always imagined elves as having powerful, yet slender, bodies and bony faces, so the high cheekbones etc didn't bother me. I thought they all should have been as bony-faced as Movie-Legolas (and Movie-Frodo; too bad he was so short, or Wood could have played an elf.) Movie-Elrond and Movie-Arwen, I thought, were not bony enough. (I've relaxed about that a bit, though. Maybe because I've been impressed with Liv Tyler lately. In interviews lately she seems to have some brains.)

Regarding somber elves: I remember seeing (somewhere) a clip of two elves running through the woods; it was a very playful clip, sort of looked like a game of tag. It was very un-somber. I mentally categorize it together with "Tra-la-la-Lally" (a personal favorite of mine.) But it never made it into the movie, because it did nothing for the plot. Too bad.

Movie-Hobbits likewise. I would especially have preferred more valor from Movie-Frodo. The hobbit-actors got lots of sword-training, but precious little of M-Frodo's bladework made it into the movie. Apparently PJ saw it as not doing much for the plot (I would heartily disagree; it was, I think, necessary for the character.)

M-Pippin and M-Merry I have little comment on, perhaps because lately I find the actors quite annoying.

M-Sam was fine. My only complaint: too bad he didn't slim down by the time they got to Mount Doom.

On the whole I thought that the Elves and the Hobbits were well done. However,like SpM I also found the size of the Hobbit's heads to be too small in relation to their bodies, they looked too much like children. Also, in the shots where the small stand-ins were used for each Hobbit, they didn't seem to move in the same way as the larger actors. They reminded me of the little jawas from Star Wars, especially when they were wearing cloaks.

The portrayal of the Elves I found very pleasing. Except for Elrond and Arwen. Hugo Weaving certainly looked the part, but he seemed to translate Elrond's wisdom and gravitas into a permanent frown and a general 'ticked off at everyone' manner. Liv Tyler's Arwen was just too 'earthy' looking and not at all the ethereal princess that I pictured from the books. Cate Blanchett, on the other hand, was perfect as Galadriel.

~now of course the elves needed of talk a little MORE and cirdan should've been a bigger charac.-he was a smudge near the dock...and nothing (i repeat!) was mentioned about aman, though they said "white shores"... thats all... and i think frodo should be more "hobbitish" at first, and pj's corrected thing to do was frodo gets possessed and burdened close to the ending, thus his haunting looks. and, the part when galadriel spreads her hands, glowing-lights thingy. cheesy.

With the size thing, if anyone has seen Charlie and the Chocolate Factory then I think there the difference in sizes was shown very well with the Oompa Loompas. If it can be done in one film I don't see why it couldn't have been in LotR.

I don't see you as being derogatory, SpM, but to me this implies more of 'little people' rather than hobbits. And (assuming) I would think as a whole little people would not want to be known as hobbits. It had been questioned why P.J. hadn't used little people as hobbits, like in Willow , but I don't remember what the reply was.

I haven't seen the new Charlie movie, maybe it does convey the head/body relation better.

No, I wasn't thinking of RL dwarves (ie those with the condition dwarfism), who generally have very distinctive features, nor of RL midgets, whose heads tend to be in proportion to their bodies.

There are a number dwarf and midget actors: as you say the actor who played Willow, Kenny Baker of Star Wars (R2D2) fame and the other actors who starred alongside Kenny Baker in Time Bandits, for example. It would have been an option to use such actors in a film version of LotR. But they would not have looked like the Hobbits of my imagination, so I think that Jackson made the right choice.

i agree spm
the head body relational thing i agree with too, although i never realized that until you brought it up. I also agree with you on PJ's choice. Hobbits are hobbits not little people or dwarfism. But a little tweaking on the visuals would have helped, plus more of the group shots where the viewers could do more mental catagorizing.

Or maybe you were thinking of human babies? ;) I agree that in the Rivendell shot it was kind of weird looking. I don't remember anything else being "off". (P.S. like the new avvie)

Speaking in terms of generalizations, I saw the elves more as clones where as the hobbits seemed to have more and different personalities and I mean the 'crowds'.

I shall add this bit as it has always been my opinion Frodo overall was the only hobbit that I did not care for...Personally I can't think of anyone better but Elijah Wood was not a good actor for this part it did not help that movie frodo was a little wack(believing gollum about lembas) also the elves were wonderful even the background elves acted like elves i suppose when it comes down to it Frodo really could have been better and maybe merry but pippin and sam were superb (but Sam is my favorite almost met Sean Astin at the museum of Science but it was like a 4 hour wait my mom said she wouldnt have minded waiting but i know she didnt want to so i didn't) anywho elves and hobbit were great

ok Time for my two cents... (I love this stuff)

As for all hobbits being equal size: All five actors (that's counting Ian Holm as Bilbo) are 5 ft. 6 in. tall or real close to that. John Rhys-Davies is just over 6 feet (I believe 6' 1"). If the special effects tweaked the visuals, which they did, all five hobbits would still appear the same height while the dwarf would be taller. Kath, you made a good point there. However, height even varies among little people, I think the reason Chocolate factory oompa-loompas (gosh did I spell that right?) or munchkins from OZ are of various hights has to do with varying heights among the actors.

Sadly, I have to agree with some of you on the portrayal of Frodo. When he dropped his sword and ran from the nazgul on weathertop was bad enough (in the book he stabs the witch-king) but driving Sam away and believeing Gollum is just this sweet, honest, harmless poor victimized creature was AWFUL. And there was just one too many Frodo-with-Ring-in-hand-staring-into-space-shots.

It is my opinion that one the great travesties of the movies was the portrayal of Elrond. They took noble, venerable, wise, sympathetic, kind as summer and turned it into Ticked off at everyone-don't bug me I have jealously issues-men are so stupid and so are dwarves and hobbits. Ai! As for the rest of the elves, physically they were well done. They are supposed to be beautiful and ethereal ,and that came through quite well. But they were tooooo serious! What happened to "merry as children?" All the movie elves' heads would have imploded after ten minutes in the hall of fire. They only time they ever sing anything they are lamenting. Haldir was way too standoff-ish (But if I was shoved where I wasn't supposed to be and was told to die I'd probably be in a bad mood too). Granted, in the book Haldir is a bit crabby at first but he ends up becoming good friends with all the members of the fellowship. And of course, poor Celeborn......
:( And Legolas was just a little too superheroy

I must say, after all is said and done, it is still just a movie. A directors portrayal of a book. it's not supposed to be exactly like the book and it is exhausting to worry about being like the book. No one is going to see the movie or the books exactly the same. We are all individuals and we each have a mind's eye of our own. All in all I still think tolkien would have been very very pleased. Reading the books you really get to know a character inside and out. Watching the movie the audience can only see the surface. it's the actors job to show you the character and the directors interpretation of the character to the actor. With that said, in my opinion the portrayals of the characters physically were next to, for lack or a better word, perfect. However, character development was somewhat lacking. Expounding on what I said before everyone sees things differently and some things are going to matter more to some than others. For instance the character development of Frodo. Book Frodo was a scholarly fellow but was as merry as could be. At the beginning of FOTR we saw how merry he can be and at the end of ROTK, in my opinion, I saw what Frodo should have been all throughout the movie, just strong, brave, wise..you know all that goods stuff. And honestly I cannot see book Frodo standing on the shore of Parth Galen shedding a few tears. Not saying Elijah wasn't wonderful and loveable, just perhaps a little misinterpreted. Sam was perfect I must say. I have no qualms about him. My minds eye truly came to life. Aragorn I can also say was next to perfect, but Viggo is one amazingly thrilling man so it was expected. Arwen....Liv was perfect for the role, however, unecessary. Galadriel...enough said. That is who Cate was. Same for Gimli. Pippin and Merry, my goodness, absolutely hilarious. However, not what I expected. But that's a good thing. I was hoping they would mention Merry's boating skills and his relationship with the trees and the Ents, but I suppose it wasn't exactly needed. I'm glad they made Pippin somewhat brighter than he was at the beginning of the book and that they made Merry a little less serious. It was a nice balance. I didn't feel like merry was leading pippin by the nose all the time in the movies. Legolas, Orlando....oh man...exactly how I pictured Legolas, but I must say he was a little naive for my liking. however i have to give Orlando a break for the fact that it was technically his first real movie role. I just didn't feel Orlando could really live in middle-Earth, but he was still amazing. that's not all but that's enough for now. I'll add more later.

I would agree with that. When I first saw FotR I hadn't ever read LotR, and I somehow got the impression that Hobbits weren't particularly short, Wizards were just really tall. :eek: I guess this means that the size difference between Gandalf and the Hobbits was well emphasized, but the difference between the Hobbits and the other characters wasn't shown nearly as well.