All of this leads me to believe that the dwarves in these photos are probably armed with weapons found when they reached the Lonely Mountain, since they seem to have set off with gear more appropriate for travel, hunting, and mining than battle. (Which makes sense, seeing as they never meant to launch any kind of frontal assault against the dragon.) This is actually a comforting thought because it clears up a lot of things that otherwise seem to not match the book... there's still the opportunity to put them in their proper colored hoods and cloaks at the beginning of the story, and the items found at the Lonely Mountain were not all of dwarven make, so that can explain the very varied look of the weaponry, which was compiled from all the launds Smaug destroyed (I've always wondered how he carried it all back though... I usually don't picture dragons with opposable thumbs! Haha)

All of this leads me to believe that the dwarves in these photos are probably armed with weapons found when they reached the Lonely Mountain, since they seem to have set off with gear more appropriate for travel, hunting, and mining than battle. (Which makes sense, seeing as they never meant to launch any kind of frontal assault against the dragon.) This is actually a comforting thought because it clears up a lot of things that otherwise seem to not match the book... there's still the opportunity to put them in their proper colored hoods and cloaks at the beginning of the story, and the items found at the Lonely Mountain were not all of dwarven make, so that can explain the very varied look of the weaponry, which was compiled from all the launds Smaug destroyed (I've always wondered how he carried it all back though... I usually don't picture dragons with opposable thumbs! Haha)

I really hope that's the case, but it didn't look like it in the videos. There was a scene with them shooting 'Trollshaws' running at the targets with axes.

1. Practicality: some of theise weapons look impressive, but I couldnt see how it would work out in action. (mabye they want the orcs to laugh to death?)

2. Size: with all weapons, you need to actually lift it. Seeing as dwraves are pretty strong, wemay not think it a problem. However, if it was bulky and you needed to carry it on a long journy, which as we have pointed out shouldnt be neccicairy in the first place, it willbe more a pain than a help.

I have one thing to say to all this: wait till December, 2012 and you'll see. No use speculating now. You won't be disappointed. At least, I won't.

I wish this to be true... but unless the Dwarves look as Tolkien Dwarves should and grow some beards, I know I won't be pleased.

This has been said many times - to adapt a novel into a film you need to do changes - now with regards to the Dwarves' appearances, it's easy to follow the ones in the book and know who's who (though many of them are rarely mentioned). In a film, things are different. The audience needs to identify immediately who is the Dwarf currently in shot - thus the different appearances. Although I personally think that Thorin, Balin, Dwalin, Gloin and Oin look perfect - the rest is abit off. But still, you can't have all of them looking like each other.

---------- "If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world." J.R.R. Tolkien - The Hobbit

As has been said by several posts not so long before, people are still going to confuse them and not remember the names whatever they look like, so they may as well stick to canon. Thorin can be dressed as a tooth fairy for all I care, and people will still call him "the tooth fairy guy" and not "Thorin". What's the difference then between saying "the guy with the triangular hairstyle" and "the blonde guy" (or whatever the dwarf-in-question's book appearance is).

Besides, do people confuse the movie hobbits, just because they all have furry feet and curly hair? Dropping the key distinguishing feature of a race with the feeble excuse of viewer-friendliness (with the true reason, as more or less everyone suspects, being to get fangirls... long-bearded guys are not considered so universally attractive after all) is in my eyes an inexcusable crime against Tolkien's world.

I wish people would stop with this "books are not movies" chorus already, it's getting quite unoriginal and overused. It's a convenient mantra to excuse all kinds of canon butchery, and a universal brushoff line for those who have bones to pick with PJ: As can be noted, critics of PJ's movies tend to pick on changes they find *unnecessary*, not rant against all of them. We *are* aware that all book stuff cannot find its way into the movie, and some things need to be altered. The example above is not one of them in my eyes, for reasons I stated above.

Tolkien himself noted: 'The canons of narrative art in any medium cannot be wholly different; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration, and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies.'

@ Asea_aranion: I doubt that too, Asea - if their beards had been shaved off after the spider adventure, Bombur wouldn't have his absurd braid of a moustache either.

Woah calm down! hehe!

You all mentioned good points but what's done is done now I guess.

What's the difference then between saying "the guy with the triangular hairstyle" and "the blonde guy" (or whatever the dwarf-in-question's book appearance is).

True. But at least, if someone asks: "So who is Nori?", at least someone can answer with "the star-shaped hairstyle guy" or else "Who's Bombur? The one with the hair necklace." It's called identification.

what a character looks like, and short of having a character mention it, a movie cannot tell us exactly what a character looks like. If a character is described as looking "noble" or "strong" or "wise", there are many ways in which one might portray that on film, and not everyone might agree that it is exactly right, but we can agree that it was the filmmaker's interpretation, and that, if that was as strict of a description as was given, it may very well be an understandable conclusion. But if a book tells us of a character with blonde hair and blue eyes who carries a longsword and wears a green tunic and brown boots, a movie can show us a man with blonde hair, blue eyes, a longsword, green tunic, and brown boots. And if it instead shows us a man with red hair, green eyes, a red tunic, black boots, and a battle axe, we have a right to be really annoyed, especially if any of the information was critical to the story in some way. I don't think the fact that his brother wears a green tunic as well is a valid excuse for changing the color.

As happens in 'The Hobbit' most of the Dwarves are barely even mentioned and only given vague descriptions at the start. A filmmaker needs to flesh-out these things for the audience. After all, he is making the film, hence "filmmaker" - we have no control over that. One cannot say "But he must follow the fans' wishes and follow the book" - until one actually sees the film.

If you were to take the filmmaker's point to the extreme (which I think PJ does not fall into this category), you could say that, no matter what is thrown on the internet regarding the film, be it canon or not, people will still go an watch it no matter what (loads of people) - following the success of 'The Lord of the Rings'. That's how franchises work (unfortunately).

If all that was said about the character was that he was blonde and wore a blue cloak, if you're given pretty much free reign with anything else about his appearance, why on earth is it so difficult to make him blonde and give him a blue cloak? (I'm still holding out hope that the proper colored hoods will make an appearance at some point...)

As for the "but he must follow the book" comment, I honestly believe that when you take on a project that is based on someone else's original work, you owe it to that artist/author/what have you, and to their work to make an honest attempt to do it justice.

I could sit here for the entire day nit-picking at things in the Lord of the Rings films that were wrong, non-canonical, and straight up heresy. But at the end of the day, I'm able to enjoy them as an entire work that made a respectable attempt at recreating Tolkien's Middle-Earth for the silver screen.

If one wants distinction there are plenty of ways to achieve it

Jackson's specific ways are not immune to negative criticism

If one wants distinction there are plenty of ways to achieve it

Ilandir responded: For example?

Jackson's specific ways are not immune to negative criticism

Of course not.

Well, all I can say is, if you're not too keen on how 'The Hobbit' is turning out to be .... easy! Don't watch the films

Wow that is easy! thanks

I'll try to keep all these in mind when it's being explained to me why starfish hair, beardless Dwarves, an axe-in-a-head, and a hair necklace are all necessary inventions or alterations because film is film.

I think I already mentioned this somewhere in the thread, but I've always interpreted the "blue" of the beard in the same way as Gandalf's hat (which is also described as blue) - a blue-gray. If you look at various shades of the color grey, it can seem more yellow, or brown, or blue depending on the shade, and considering the fact that no other bright-to-the-point-of-being-unnatural hair colors are mentioned, and the fact that two other characters are described as having yellow beards which we can also reasonably assume is meant to indicate blonde haired people, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that Dwalin's beard is intended to be a dark shade of grey.

I don't think that discussing beard length in Snow White's dwarves is particularly relevant, simply because that's Disney canon, and in that universe, that isn't a trait that is important. My point, and my reason for bringing them up, is that they all look very, VERY similar, and yet no one ever really confuses them. Like Tolkien's dwarves, their main distinguishing features are the colors of their clothes, and the styles of their hair/beards.

To answer your other question, yes, it does bother me that Dwalin's beard is the wrong color.

In the very beginning of the book, the color of his hood, beard, and belt are explicitly descriped, as well as his eyes, as the fact that his beard is long enough to tuck into his belt. And frankly, I can't understand what excuse could possibly be given for something like that. What logical reason is there for information that is explicitly stated in the book to be changed?

To me, that seems incredibly lazy. Reading the first few chapters of the book is enough to get an idea of the dwarves basic appearance and personality traits. To blatantly ignore them gives off a sense of, at best "I don't care", and at worst "No wait, I can do better."

As I said, if it's too much to handle, avoid watching the films ...

I'll try to keep all these in mind when it's being explained to me why starfish hair, beardless Dwarves, an axe-in-a-head, and a hair necklace are all necessary inventions or alterations because film is film.

It's called backstory. Every character in every film needs to have background information. It's essential.

Deal with it.

Which reminds me ... so does it bother you that Dwalin has no blue beard? Because after all that's how he is described in 'The Hobbit'... I don't think it does.

It's more difficult when you have 13 protagonists that all look the same - like this. It. Does. Not. Work.

Which reminds me ... so does it bother you that Dwalin has no blue beard? Because after all that's how he is described in 'The Hobbit'... I don't think it does.

Asea already posted nicely on this, and I've seen some subtle 'blue' or blue-grey hair that I think would be fine. Why not follow the book here?