Welcome Guest
Username: Password: Register

Forum Home » Movies Discussion » Discuss the Movies » The Hobbit film

<< First 22 23 24 25 26 Last >>

Author	Topic:

Elthir

Council Member
Posts: 432
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 17, 2011 05:36

Noleme wrote: Not really wanting to tresspass on Linwe's mod territory here, but some of you guys, please keep the snideness to minimum. (...)

Linwe wrote: P.S. Adding s or s after snide comments doesn't make them ok, either.

For the record none of my comments were intended as snide ('derogatory in a malicious, superior way' or 'derogatory in a nasty, insinuating manner').

The winks or smiles are genuine. A bit of fun even to deal with some responses that I wasn't sure about with respect to the tone behind them... but that's the point, I wasn't sure Ilandir was being in any measure nasty or agressive -- which even if he (or she) was, I wanted to make it clear I wasn't doing so myself.

I get that some points have been slightly beaten, but if you are referring to me (as obviously I think you are, at least in part) one example that might be read in some snide way could be my question about the 'rule book' -- since there's no such book on filmmaking, at least that I ever heard of...

... but the question form is meant to reflect a sincere measure of wonder at how some (not just Ilandir) can post with such surety about what is 'essential' to films. And a question highlights even better IMO -- by its seemingly 'obvious' answer at least -- something that I think doesn't appear to be said enough -- that even an arguably tried and true 'film rule' can be challenged by a true artist, which I hope will actually happen more in the future for even 'big budget' films.

Sorry to digress in the thread, but that's where you both chose to characterize some of us guys posts as snide, which could have been done in PM.

Do you read an angry tone here? There isn't one I assure you; I post to have fun and discussTolkien, and I'm sorry if negative opinions about the film are negative, but everyone has the right to express their true opinions of course.

And to end with, I suppose that it doesn't matter what I intended... more than one person appears to have read something in my posts as snide so I'll apologize for not doing a better job (which I agree I could have done after reading them again with attempted 'other eyes')...

... and for rambling a bit.

[Edited on 18/8/2011 by Elthir]

Elthir

Council Member
Posts: 432
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 18, 2011 01:56

The color around the edges is kind of what I was thinking. According to the URL, this is actually Gloin.

Good example. I think some are imagining what they would call a ridiculous blue -- but something like that (Gloin), or even a subtle bluish hint within a darker grey, would be nice I think.

In the Primary World blue was used historically as a decorative paint on the body, or so certain films show us anyway -- I never really investigated more scholarly sources on this. Audiences might wonder if blue, or streaks of blue, had decorative significance; since beards were important to the Naugrim, colour as well as length or style might reflect some significance.

I've no text to back up that 'might', but Tolkien kept the coloured beards for the 1960 Hobbit, so it appears, at least, that he didn't think this detail (written years before) too silly for Middle-earth.

Maybe some would find a blue beard silly, depending upon how it was done, I don't know; but if considered a backstory detail, at least it would have its source in the books.

asea_aranion

Council Member
Posts: 533
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 18, 2011 03:06

The color around the edges is kind of what I was thinking. According to the URL, this is actually Gloin.

Good example. I think some are imagining what they would call a ridiculous blue -- but something like that (Gloin), or even a subtle bluish hint within a darker grey, would be nice I think.

In the Primary World blue was used historically as a decorative paint on the body, or so certain films show us anyway -- I never really investigated more scholarly sources on this. Audiences might wonder if blue, or streaks of blue, had decorative significance; since beards were important to the Naugrim, colour as well as length or style might reflect some significance.

I've no text to back up that 'might', but Tolkien kept the coloured beards for the 1960 Hobbit, so it appears, at least, that he didn't think this detail (written years before) too silly for Middle-earth.

Maybe some would find a blue beard silly, depending upon how it was done, I don't know; but if considered a backstory detail, at least it would have its source in the books.

I never considered the idea of the blue in a "war-paint" kind of way, but that's a very interesting interpretation. And if any of the free peoples of Middle-Earth were into war paint, I'd definitely bet it would be the dwarves! Haha.

See, that brings me over to another can of worms that is WAY too big to dive into, but it certainly makes one wonder exactly what colors of dyes and paints they would have had in Middle Earth, considering the fact that they seem to have their own variety of plants, as well as some that we're familiar with... I guess my tendency is to try and match it up with the appropriate point in history in our world, but that isn't necessarily possible in this case. It's certainly cool to think about though, how they would have made their fabrics and dyes and where they would have gotten them... I'm sure hobbits would have had an abundance of wool! Haha.

LinweSingollo

Movies & Casting Mod, Resident Hobbit & Frodo's Footstool
Posts: 3292
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 18, 2011 03:09

... Sorry to digress in the thread, but that's where you both chose to characterize some of us guys posts as snide, which could have been done in PM.

And to end with, I suppose that it doesn't matter what I intended... more than one person appears to have read something in my posts as snide so I'll apologize for not doing a better job (which I agree I could have done after reading them again with attempted 'other eyes')...

I'll address two things here:

First: Elthir, I'm sorry you felt singled out. I was adressing everyone involved in the current conversation, not singling out any one person, hence my reason for posting in the thread. Which, I might add, is my perogative and job as a moderator.

Second: apology accepted.

Carry on....

"To the Hobbits. May they outlast the Sarumans and see spring again in the trees." J.R.R. Tolkien

Elthir

Council Member
Posts: 432
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 18, 2011 03:31

About the coloured hoods, I'm reading The Hobbit again after a longish spell (too long), but only have read a couple chapters so far... anyway I think I remember something about the hoods being 'party hoods' (or similar) and I can't remember if the colours are referred to again, later in the tale.

All the more need for a re-read I guess.

[Edited on 18/8/2011 by Elthir]

asea_aranion

Council Member
Posts: 533
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 18, 2011 03:35

Having now finally gotten the chance to watch the production videos, I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on the bits we saw there, namely the dwarves in Bag End, a bit of Riddles in the Dark, and what is now apparently a battle scene at the Trollshaws.

The first thing that struck me with Bag End was the way the room they were in looked SO packed, which I thought was great, because of course Bilbo's hobbit hole isn't meant to entertain such a large group of people who are so much bigger than him. It reminded me of all the artwork I've seen depicting that scene where everyone is squished in around the table. I'm also excited that PJ said they're keeping at least some of the songs, so I really hope that scene includes the song about breaking all of Bilbo's plates! The actors seem like they're all very excited and up for humor, which is great because The Hobbit is a much more humorous story (I think) than Lord of the Rings.

The Riddles in the Dark bit, as we saw it there, was kind of hard for me to imagine, just because obviously on film it wouldn't be nearly so bright. I expect Andy to be perfectly brilliant, and my hope is that they preserve the initial dialogue as much as possible.

I know there's been some debate in the fandom over whether the Gollum we see in the hobbit should be much more Gollum than Smeagol, or if he should still be a more balanced combination of the two. I can see both sides of the argument, and I'm kind of torn myself, but I do know that even in The Hobbit, Gollum talks to himself, so I'd have to presume that in those cases it would be a conversation between Gollum and Smeagol (likely with some degree of the accompanying voice change/face scrunching/eye dilation like we've seen before). However, those instance are also far less frequent than what we saw in Lord of the Rings, so if the dialogue from the book makes it to film, I suppose I'd expect to see mostly Gollum with a few interjections of Smeagol.

The bit I'm referring to is here:

After a while Gollum stopped weeping and began to talk. He seemed to be having an argument with himself.

"It's no good going back there to search, no. We doesn't remember all the places we've visited. and it's no use. The Baggins has got it in its pocketses; the nassty noser has found it, we ways.

"We guesses, precious, only guesses. We can't know till we find the nassty creature and squeezes it. But it doesn't know what the present can do, does it? It'll just keep it in its pocketses. It doesn't know, and it can't go far. It's lost itself, the nassty nosey thing. It doesn't know the way out. It said so.

"It said so, yes; but it's tricksy. It doesn't say what it means. It won't say what it's got in its pocketses. It knows. It knows a way in, it must know a way out, yes. It's off to the back-door. to the back-door, that's it.

"The goblins will catch it then. It can't get out that way, precious.

"Ssss, sss, gollum! Goblinses! Yes, but if it's got the present, our precious present, then goblinses will get it, gollum! They'll find it, they'll find out what it does. We shan't ever be safe again, never, gollum! One of the goblinses will put it on, and then no one will see him. He'll be there but not seen. Not even our clever eyeses will notice him; and he'll come creepsy and tricksy and catch us, gollum, gollum!"

"Then let's stop talking, precious, and make haste. If the Baggins has gone that way, we must go quick and see. Go! Not far now. Make haste!"

Some of those lines definitely seem more Gollum-like or more Smeagol-like, and the fact that they are printed with the separatations like that makes me think it's intended to be Gollum and Smeagol talking... but I believe that's the only part of the chapter where it happens. (I don't have my book on me, I found that online)

I'm also curious as to whether or not any of Gollum's inner monologue will make it to the film, as there are a few bits I really love. One of my favorite lines is "He was anxious to appear friendly, at any rate for the moment, and until he found out more about the sword and the hobbit, whether he was quite alone really, whether he was good to eat, and whether Gollum was really hungry." I just love the bit about wondering if Bilbo is good to eat, or if Gollum is even hungry anyway. Haha.

And last but not least... Trollshaws. I'm intrigued by the decision to have a battle scene here, especially because when we hear Bilbo telling the story in FotR, he tells it as it happened in the book, where everyone winds up captured and waiting to be eaten. I suppose a battle scene doesn't mean that that's NOT what happens, they could very well fight and all wind up with bags over their heads anyway. I just hope that the scene is still intact in its other aspects, namely all the arguing between the three trolls. I would be disappointed if they were reduced to cave troll-style trolls who didn't even speak.

I think these points will provide us with some interesting discussion that we haven't really gotten into yet, being so preoccupied with the publicity stills. And beyond these three scenes, what are certain other scenes or lines that you would really love to see? I think I mentioned earlier that I sincerely hope that Gandalf and Bilbo's "Good Morning" exchange is included!

asea_aranion

Council Member
Posts: 533
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 18, 2011 03:56

About the coloured hoods, I'm reading The Hobbit again after a longish spell (too long), but only have read a couple chapters so far... anyway I think I remember something about the hoods being 'party hoods' (or similar) and I can't remember in the colours are referred to again, later in the tale.

All the more need for a re-read I guess.

[Edited on 18/8/2011 by Elthir]

I just reread the book, so it's fairly fresh in my memory. The hoods are "the best detachable party hoods", and while they arrive at the door in them, they all take them off and hang them in the hall. Whether or not everyone wears them for the remainder of the journey is up for interpretation, though we know Thorin does, as his is noted to have gotten quite dirty by the time they reach Lake Town, and Fili does, because when Bilbo finds the dwarves trapped by the spiders, he identifies the bundle of web that is "probably Fili or Kili" by the blue hood, and then determines it to be Fili because of the long nose sticking out. Bilbo also mentions being able to see bits of hood of other spider-webbed dwarves as well, so it's probably safe to assume that they do continue to wear them on their journey, party hoods or not. I have always assumed that their hoods matched their cloaks, considering that, though they are detachable, when Bilbo borrows a cloak and hood from Dwalin, both are dark green. (Which is a really comical mental image now, considering Dwalin is one of the biggest dwarves in the party! Imagine how silly Bilbo would look! Haha)

Another interesting clothing note is that when the dwarves are captured by the trolls, they are noted to be wearing stockings (they argue over whether Thorin was the one wearing they grey ones, or yellow ones). The pictures of the dwarves we have are very dark in the bottom half, so it's hard to tell what kind of pants they have on, and I had a hard time even conjuring up a mental image of what kind of pants Gimli wore, so I dug up this:

So I suppose perhaps what Tolkien intended might have been closer to leggings than the baggy pants Gimli wears, but between the tunics, armor, and big heavy boots, I don't suppose we'd ever see much of them, unless a dwarf managed to get stuck with a sack over his head being picked over my trolls!

Ilandir

Council Member
Posts: 475
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 18, 2011 04:42

Is there a rule book on filmmaking that I'm unaware of? And in any case, even if enough people agree with this -- no character 'needs' the particular backstory of starfish hair or an axe-in-the-head... any more than they need a hole in the head -- well I couldn't resist that last part.

Clearly you haven't had any Scripting Video classes ... hehe

From what I have heard, it was fan outcry that prevented movie Arwen from appearing at Helm's Deep, so I'd say ranting against the worst canon offenses does have a point. The chance that PJ will reconsider the Tolkien-ness of most of his Dwarves is slim, but it's there.

Well, considering they've already shot 54 days with the Dwarves' appearances as is, I'd say it's not "slim", but impossible.

The winks or smiles are genuine

Same here. We're just giving healthy debates I guess

Now, asea, those photos of the Dwarves you posted are excellent. I mean, I'm all in favour of all of you (particularly asea, Noleme and Elthir) regarding the Tolkienesque look about them. And believe me, I would really have loved to see all 13 dwarves like that. And yes, I was disappointed when the pictures started to pop up on the internet. But then I guess I started to understand maybe the reasoning behind the decision to give them each a unique look ... it might be denial from my part!

'A Tolkienist's Perspective' Blog

asea_aranion

Council Member
Posts: 533
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 18, 2011 04:51

This is mostly for Elthir, in regards to the party hood discussion, but someone over at TORn screencapped the production videos...

This is supposedly Dwalin coming in the door for the first time, notably lacking a hood, HOWEVER, in a subsequent shot we see other dwarves in the same kind of position, and they don't appear to be in full costume. (At least not as we saw them in the publicity stills) HOPE IS KINDLED! Haha.

Also, I noticed in this shot, Dwalin's beard looks more grey to me than it did in initial photos.

There's also this shot of Bifur:

I really like his beard, but is the... object... lodged in his forhead looking bigger to anyone else? Poor Bifur...

[Edited on 18/8/2011 by asea_aranion]

[Edited on 18/8/2011 by asea_aranion]

Elthir

Council Member
Posts: 432
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 18, 2011 05:46

Thanks asea... yes I thought a later episode might note at least one of the coloured hoods again, but as I say I've been away from the actual story for too long -- though the History of the Hobbit is interesting in parts, and jogs my memory on things here or there.

No worries Ilandir, as they say down under

And if there's a film class for the 'rebel filmmaker', that would interest me in general. I once saw a whole film (which wasn't exactly short considering the following) that was shot in one take! Quite a feat and interesting...

... and beautiful it was (to paraphrase a certain Jedi Master), but I can't say I'm tempted to watch that film again.

asea_aranion

Council Member
Posts: 533
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 18, 2011 06:00

Thorin's sky blue hood is definitely mentioned the most out of anybody's.

Ilandir

Council Member
Posts: 475
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 18, 2011 06:04

And if there's a film class for the 'rebel filmmaker', that would interest me in general.

*Gimli's laugh at Helm's Deep* Hehehe!

I really like his beard, but is the... object... lodged in his forhead looking bigger to anyone else?

Ridiculously huge ... I was honestly shocked when I saw him come in shot during the video. It seems they "shrunk" the hammer-thing for the photo!

This is supposedly Dwalin coming in the door for the first time, notably lacking a hood, HOWEVER, in a subsequent shot we see other dwarves in the same kind of position, and they don't appear to be in full costume. (At least not as we saw them in the publicity stills) HOPE IS KINDLED! Haha.

Yes I think this is most probably just a rehearsal rather than actual filming.

[Edited on 18/8/2011 by Ilandir]

'A Tolkienist's Perspective' Blog

asea_aranion

Council Member
Posts: 533
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 18, 2011 07:08

I really like his beard, but is the... object... lodged in his forhead looking bigger to anyone else?

Ridiculously huge ... I was honestly shocked when I saw him come in shot during the video. It seems they "shrunk" the hammer-thing for the photo!

I'm very intrigued by that object, mostly because it looks as though what we see protruding is the BACK of an axe or hammer, or pick... (based on the shape of the wound as I can see it I'd guess axe...) which would obviously lead one to believe that it is the much larger FRONT end that is embedded in his brain. I'm really not sure the particulars of the dwarven nervous system, but I really don't think you could LIVE through something like that, let alone maintain normal speech and motor functions...

Is there a doctor in the house?? Haha.

asea_aranion

Council Member
Posts: 533
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 18, 2011 07:46

Disclaimer #1: I am not a doctor. I am just good with Google.

Disclaimer #2: Everything I am about to say has no basis in the book (obviously) or what we've seen so far in filming (which is very little to go on anyway).

So without further ado... some Thoughts on Bifur's Head Wound

So... Bifur has what appears to be an axe head stuck in his head. Wondering how that has the potential to effect the character, (and because it is my job to stare at a computer screen and do nothing all day so I haven't got anything else to do) I decided to do some research.

I started out by looking up information for Traumatic Brain Injuries, because, well, an axe in your head is probably a Traumatic Brain Injury.

There are a variety of ways the brain can be injured, including bruising, tearing, and swelling. None of them are really good for you... Haha. Bruising and swelling are dangerous because it can cause pressue on various parts of the brain that would decrease function, and tearing can sever important pieces of the brain which could eliminate certain functions.

Because Bifur's wound would also presumably involve a skull fracture of some degree, there would be the added benefit of the fact that the fracture would allow the release of excess pressure, preventing further brain damage after the inital blow to the head. On the flip side, if the skull is fractured, that can also mean that there's bone fragments floating around, which is no good. (Surgery is usually required to get rid of that)

How a TBI effects someone depends on the type of damage that is done, as well as the area of the brain that was damaged.

Based on this, I'm going to say that the damage would be to the frontal lobe area.

Duties of the frontal lobe of our brain are...
"How we know what we are doing within our environment (Consciousness). How we initiate activity in response to our environment. Judgments we make about what occurs in our daily activities. Controls our emotional response. Controls our expressive language. Assigns meaning to the words we choose. Involves word associations.
Memory for habits and motor activities."

And damage to it can induce such symptoms as...
"Loss of simple movement of various body parts (Paralysis). Inability to plan a sequence of complex movements needed to complete multi-stepped tasks, such as making coffee (Sequencing). Loss of spontaneity in interacting with others. Loss of flexibility in thinking. Persistence of a single thought (Perseveration). Inability to focus on task (Attending). Mood changes (Emotionally Labile). Changes in social behavior. Changes in personality. Difficulty with problem solving.
Inablility to express language (Broca's Aphasia)."

Here's a simpler way of looking at it:

Frontal lobe damage can have an effect on the stability of a person's behavior. "When traumatic brain injury occurs to the frontal area, it is impacting the brain’s largest lobe. Located at the front of each cerebral hemisphere, this lobe is responsible for conscious thought, voluntary movement, and individual personality characteristics. When you are searching for just the right word to say, it is this section of the brain upon which you rely. Damage to this vital lobe can cause impairments in judgment, attention span and organizational ability, as well as a loss of motivation. In addition, the frontal lobes are charged with the task of regulating mood and emotions. Consequently, when they are compromised, a patient may become impulsive, act rashly, and adopt risky behaviors such as substance abuse."

Unfortunately, googling "Can you live with an axe in your head?" doesn't turn up any useful results, but if the axe wasn't big enough to reach any parts of the brain that control essential life functions, and there was no continued damage after the initial injury, and if he didn't bleed out, and if he didn't get any kind of infection from his giant head wound... I guess maybe he could go on living with an axe in his head?

But he's also probably pretty darn unstable, but I doubt that, even if you survive something like that, you don't show symptoms of TBI.

(Can you tell I get really bored during the day?)

Sources:
http://www.tbiguide.com/howbrainhurt.html
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/tbi/tbi.htm
http://www.neuroskills.com/brain.shtml
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031007055417.htm
http://www.brainandspinalcord.org/brain-injury/frontal-lobe.html
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1135866-overview

[Edited on 18/8/2011 by asea_aranion]

Ilandir

Council Member
Posts: 475
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 18, 2011 08:05

Wow that's a really detailed explanation!

Well, I might not find it too far-fetched that he survived - after all, I believe there where a few cases know where people actually had a bullet in their brain and survived, so Bifur's situation might be plausable.

What I can't figure out is the fact that, as you rightly pointed out asea, it looks like the back of a hammer or axe - but how the it get stuck that way round? I'm no expert either but it looks like the way it's positioned, it would make the entire bulk of the hammer/axe within Bifur's head! - thus explaining the protruding end (the part that didn't fit) ... weird!

But he's also probably pretty darn unstable

Yeah, it seems like it. In the third production video, he's seen reacting madly to something and the other dwarves are holding him back.

[Edited on 18/8/2011 by Ilandir]

'A Tolkienist's Perspective' Blog

asea_aranion

Council Member
Posts: 533
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 18, 2011 08:11

I'm also curious because, based on the screenshot vs. the publicity still, it looks like it may be difficult to maintain continuity on a day to day basis during shooting...

I think you're definitely right, Ilandir, and that the bigger end of the object in question is inside Bifur's head. My thinking is that they probably left it there so that he didn't bleed out when he received the wound. Since the skull is fractured, the problem of relieving pressure on the brain would have been solved, so the remaining danger would have probably been bone fragments and blood loss. I suppose the safest way to guard against that is to not cause any additional damage by moving it.

Watching too many hospital shows has instilled in me the fact that a) if you're impaled with something, it's not a good idea to just pull it out and b) if you're going to pull it out, you have to do it at the exact same angle as it went in, otherwise you risk doing more damage. Maybe they just decided that, if he was still alive and able to function, they may as well just leave it and let it heal over.

Ilandir

Council Member
Posts: 475
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 18, 2011 09:07

That seems a very good explanation.

Why didn't the filmmakers just avoid all the trouble and didn't plant the thing in the first place!

'A Tolkienist's Perspective' Blog

asea_aranion

Council Member
Posts: 533
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 18, 2011 09:34

Because clearly, audiences are too stupid to tell Bifur from Bofur unless one of them has a huge chunk of metal in his head.

Ilandir

Council Member
Posts: 475
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 18, 2011 10:13

hmmm ... at least they could have given him some other implantation or at least a scar ...

'A Tolkienist's Perspective' Blog

tarcolan

Movies Moderator and General Dogsbody
Posts: 5947
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 18, 2011 12:08

Aulë made the dwarves before Elves or Men had appeared so it's surprising they were so humanoid let alone with similar brain layout. Heh heh. Some people have way too much time on their hands.... don't we?

Hangman Helper program

~nólemë~

Fan Creations Admin & Creations Forum Moderator
Posts: 10249
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 18, 2011 10:16

Aulë made the dwarves before Elves or Men had appeared so it's surprising they were so humanoid

Actually, it doesn't come as a surprise to me. The Dwarves were based on the Children as he remembered them from the Great Music. Aulë just didn't recall their forms all too clearly, and also wanted to make them strong to endure hardships.

Regarding the chunk of metal, I am displeased with this invention. Orcs and Dwarves were supposed to be mortal enemies, and yet some of the weapons the movie Dwarves wield resemble Orcish ones, and Bifur's "piercing" eerily resembles the Orcish way of closing wounds as shown in the LotR movies. The "Sharku" warg rider from TTT comes to mind in particular.
I am very much opposed to Dwarves resembling the Orcs in any fashion. If they felt the need to distinguish Bifur, I would very much have preferred a simple scar. This is just too cheap in my eyes.

Well, considering they've already shot 54 days with the Dwarves' appearances as is, I'd say it's not "slim", but impossible.

Maybe. I refuse to give up hope.

----------

"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

asea_aranion

Council Member
Posts: 533
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 19, 2011 03:01

Aulë made the dwarves before Elves or Men had appeared so it's surprising they were so humanoid let alone with similar brain layout. Heh heh. Some people have way too much time on their hands.... don't we?

Oh yes. That's why I said in the post that it is, quite literally, my job to sit in front of a computer screen all day and essentially do nothing. Ergo, I have a lot of free time and my only means of entertaining myself is said computer.

It can get really tedious to try and spend an entire 9 hours shift reading about things that are more relevant. Hahaha.

asea_aranion

Council Member
Posts: 533
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 19, 2011 03:27

Aulë made the dwarves before Elves or Men had appeared so it's surprising they were so humanoid

Actually, it doesn't come as a surprise to me. The Dwarves were based on the Children as he remembered them from the Great Music. Aulë just didn't recall their forms all too clearly, and also wanted to make them strong to endure hardships.

So maybe he gave them extra thick skulls so that rather than being lodged in his brain, this is merely stuck in the bone?

Regarding tarcolan's initial comment, I thought while I was looking up that info that, since we're talking about what is technically a different species in an imaginary universe, the brain might not work in the same way. But just like scientists can determine what dinosaurs looked like just by looking at the bones, (and based on that, discover where muscles would have been attached, etc.) you can also do the reverse, to some degree, with a creature you're seeing the outside of. For example, in order for a creature to walk upright, there are certain physical traits in the bone and muscle structure that MUST be present. Someone who is educated in such matters wouldn't necessarily need to see a skeleton of a human in order to know certain things about the structure of its spine or thigh bones, because they would know that those things are necessary for successful bipedal movement, and they see the human walking around.

Furthermore, "Every mammal’s brain—human, chimpanzee, dolphin, and dog—has the same basic structure: a wrinkled cortex atop a creased cerebellum, with a brain stem leading to the spinal cord. More intelligent animals have more cortical surface, however. The human cortex is much larger in proportion to the overall brain than any other animal’s."

Obviously, you can still make the argument that this is Middle-Earth and the dwarves were made my Aulë and therefore have no need to follow any sort of real-life biology, however a) Tolkien wanted to write as though he was creating an epic history/mythology for England. With that in mind, it doesn't seem farfetched to assume that his humanoid lifeforms would have comparable biology to real ones. b) Take a look at the other functions the brain is responsible for, and their locations. For Axe-In-Brain Bifur to still have the ability to see, hear, walk, breathe, or function at all, you probably can't work under the assumption that those functions are controlled by totally different parts of his brain. The way it looks, if he had a completely human brain, he would have taken a wound in the section that would LEAST impair his ability to continue to live.

So while I know that I don't have any Tolkien canon evidence that supports the previous post on Bifur's TBI, I'll still stand by it, because it seems logical.

Regarding the chunk of metal, I am displeased with this invention. Orcs and Dwarves were supposed to be mortal enemies, and yet some of the weapons the movie Dwarves wield resemble Orcish ones, and Bifur's "piercing" eerily resembles the Orcish way of closing wounds as shown in the LotR movies. The "Sharku" warg rider from TTT comes to mind in particular.
I am very much opposed to Dwarves resembling the Orcs in any fashion. If they felt the need to distinguish Bifur, I would very much have preferred a simple scar. This is just too cheap in my eyes.

I think the orc-ish feel of it is what bothers me too. I do recall the warg rider's injury and what looked like makeshift surgery. I remember thinking that, for an ORC, that was pretty cool. ("Let's see, you have a giant crack in your head... we're just gonna push it back together and screw a metal bar there to hold it shut. That's good enough, right?") Orcs aren't terribly intelligent to begin with (though I will say, there are one or two times when I kinda feel sorry for them) and they aren't overly important to anyone. There expendable, but if you can fix his head crudely, it doesn't really matter if his brains are a little scrambled by it. I would like to see the Dwarves have a little more dignity than that, you know? They're more intelligent, and they're craftsman. I'm not going to claim that they're brain surgeons, but... they couldn't figure out anything better?

To go back to a discussion that Ilandir and I were having earlier, we'd prefer that there was no axe-in-head to begin with, but once you accept that as a reality (which we have to), you're faced with the fact that, if that happened, it was probably in Bifur's best interest to leave it be to avoid further injury.

While we're at risk for beating another topic to death, there are a couple other topics in the first post I made on this page that could provide more open discussion considering they don't involve brain surgery. Hahaha.

Ilandir

Council Member
Posts: 475
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 19, 2011 06:23

Maybe. I refuse to give up hope.

You couldn't have said it better! "There is always hope!"

'A Tolkienist's Perspective' Blog

Aegor

CoE Volunteer
Posts: 984
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 19, 2011 07:45

I find the head injury piece cool. I don't see why it shouldn't fit the dwarven theme. It's easy to imagine a crazy berseking dwarf that went on to survive a hit such as this, becoming say, eccentric, afterwards. It doesn't effect the story of the Hobbit and it gives the character a bit more distinction and personal history.

Coming from a guy who, in his first movie, spew his own brains out only to collect them with his hands, stuck them back in and fasten it with a piece of cloth, I don't think we should find this to be a surprise. I can well imagine Peter giggling while designing this.

Oh and since we're discussing neurology, google topectomy

asea_aranion

Council Member
Posts: 533
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 19, 2011 08:18

I can well imagine Peter giggling while designing this.

Oh absolutely. I recall the stories of Pete's influence on Gothmog (he just picked up clay and threw it on one side of the model head making the icky tumor's we see in the film) or his insistance that the Witch-King's flail be LARGER (I believe what happened is that the design team made it slightly larger each time he asked, and then finally made it SO huge they were sure they'd bring it to Pete and he'd say it was to big, only to present it to him and have it deemed perfect.)

Oh and since we're discussing neurology, google topectomy

Is that different from a lobotomy in that it actually removes the piece of the brain? That's my Wikipedia-influenced understanding. Haha.

~nólemë~

Fan Creations Admin & Creations Forum Moderator
Posts: 10249
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 19, 2011 08:19

I don't see why it shouldn't fit the dwarven theme.

For me, it's because it's already been used for Orcs in the previous movies. I agree with Asea that Dwarves could be expected to be a bit more refined and dignified than Orcs. Also, because it's to me cheap, wannabe-scandalous and disgusting, although, as you say, PJ has showed a tendency for shocking and gory imagery in his earlier movies, so it doesn't come as a great surprise that he should choose to make a character memorable in this way.
I imagined Middle-earth to be a bit more sublime than that, even if "movies aren't books".

----------

"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

asea_aranion

Council Member
Posts: 533
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 19, 2011 10:37

I have always assumed that their hoods matched their cloaks, considering that, though they are detachable, when Bilbo borrows a cloak and hood from Dwalin, both are dark green. (Which is a really comical mental image now, considering Dwalin is one of the biggest dwarves in the party! Imagine how silly Bilbo would look! Haha)

Quoting myself because I was just reading FotR again, and remembered that there's a really delightful connection when Bilbo leaves for Rivendell - he takes out and puts on the clothes he wore on the journey - including Dwalin's green hood and cloak that he had borrowed! I just thought that was incredibly sweet. I wish that could have been incorporated somehow.

Ilandir

Council Member
Posts: 475
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 20, 2011 07:28

As a side note, I just re-watched the third video production and if you notice, throughout the video, some Dwarves DO wear hoods (and the right colour!) - notably is the shot when Bombur is doing a screen test and is running back and forth in front of the camera ... he's clearly wearing a sort of green hood over him... just thought I'd mention it ...

'A Tolkienist's Perspective' Blog

~nólemë~

Fan Creations Admin & Creations Forum Moderator
Posts: 10249
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 20, 2011 10:32

They do have hoods? Interesting and hopeful sounding, but hoods are the least of my fears... Do they have beards as well in the videos? I mean, the proper long ones?

----------

"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

Ilandir

Council Member
Posts: 475
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 21, 2011 03:40

Do they have beards as well in the videos? I mean, the proper long ones?

Of course they do! some of them

'A Tolkienist's Perspective' Blog

asea_aranion

Council Member
Posts: 533
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 22, 2011 02:48

As a side note, I just re-watched the third video production and if you notice, throughout the video, some Dwarves DO wear hoods (and the right colour!) - notably is the shot when Bombur is doing a screen test and is running back and forth in front of the camera ... he's clearly wearing a sort of green hood over him... just thought I'd mention it ...

I remember seeing a screencap of that. Hopefully he won't be the only one. I know a couple other dwarves have been noted to be wearing some sort of cloak or hood in the videos, but they're generally pretty hard to see and discern the color of.

As Arwen would say in a dramatic, whispery voice "There is still hope"

spotted

Council Member
Posts: 28
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 22, 2011 09:25

What I really want intact are the personalities. Because I am an actor, I want to see them as the charactor not a guy in a plastic based beard running in circles because the script says so. And as an author, I would say that in my mind, Tolkien would care more about their traits than their garments (though I cannot say because I nbvere spoke to him about this. And I bet he would have some input on the whole "axe in my head thing")

Yes, it is insulting that they may not be paying heed to the details of the book, but it will not change the story line as far as I am conserned. You are right that it is not very respectful to the text, but I am liting some of the things I like from what I've seen.

~nólemë~

Fan Creations Admin & Creations Forum Moderator
Posts: 10249
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 22, 2011 10:39

I have come to expect character mutilation of PJ, so I won't be greatly surprised (though angry) if the characters are widely different from the book. What worries me much more is that when I look at 10 of these 13 guys, I cannot see Tolkien. I see characters from a run-off-the-mill movie that could take place almost anywhere anytime, in almost any universe.
This is not about personal perceptions anymore but about an absolutely essential thing that they've changed, and because of which I feel I'll give the movie one try, and won't buy the DVD or return to the cinema for a re-watch.
Fangirls and acting abilities aside - long beards are to Tolkien's dwarves what furry feet are to hobbits, and what tall fair figures are to Elves. I want to see a Dwarf without a long beard about as much as I want to see a bald Elf. That's just a key distinguishing feature of a race, and I don't feel like I'm looking at Middle-earth characters when looking at PJ's version of Dwarves. I seriously hope he reconsiders yet.

[Edited on 22/8/2011 by ~nólemë~]

----------

"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

Ilandir

Council Member
Posts: 475
Send Message

RE: The Hobbit film
on: August 23, 2011 06:36

That's just a key distinguishing feature of a race, and I don't feel like I'm looking at Middle-earth characters when looking at PJ's version of Dwarves. I seriously hope he reconsiders yet.

As I previously stated, it seems difficult now to turn back, especially after two or three months of filming. What I AM expecting though is that the other Dwarves (i.e. Dain, the army during the War of the Dwarves and Orcs, and those at the Bo5A are pure Tolkien Dwarves ... let's hope!

'A Tolkienist's Perspective' Blog

<< First 22 23 24 25 26 Last >>

Members Online

Forum – Council of Elrond

Welcome Guest

Forum