|
Kemchimikemkem posted:Oh yeah, I thought some of the choices were great. Elrond, Legolas, Boromir, Gandalf of course, more. Wasn't feeling Denethor, Faramir, Arwen, Bilbo, many more. My opinion. I find it hard to fault The Hobbit though, all the choices feel right. It'll be cool to see how they play out. I thought Bilbo and Denethor (despite not being really fleshed out) had good casting. You're right about the others though. I cringe whenever Liv Tyler and David Wenham appear onscreen.
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 13:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:42 |
|
|
Octy posted:I thought Bilbo and Denethor (despite not being really fleshed out) had good casting. You're right about the others though. I cringe whenever Liv Tyler and David Wenham appear onscreen. For someone who enjoys these movies, you sure do have a lot you don't enjoy about these movies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 14:46
|
|
|
I thought Liv Tyler was unbelievably beautiful as Arwen and could watch her all day  .My only criticisms of the main cast was Orlando Bloom, who could just as easily have been replaced with a cardboard cutout of himself. When I think of Legolas I think of that moment (from the books) when he shoots down one of the Fell Beasts at night, on the shores of the Anduin, and Frodo looks up at him and sees him crowned with stars. I think of Legolas as an Ecthelion-esque badass, basically. Instead I got shield surfing, which is just cringingly bad and not badass at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 14:58
|
|
|
dolphins are gay posted:Hugo Weaving should be some sort of Nathan Fillion/Bruce Campbell/Nic Cage/Samuel L Jackson internet nerd idol with his past roles. It's weird that he doesn't have a very vocal fanbase considering he's touched Transformers, The Matrix, Lord Of The Rings, Captain America and V For Vendetta. Well, there is this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 16:25
|
|
|
dolphins are gay posted:Hugo Weaving should be some sort of Nathan Fillion/Bruce Campbell/Nic Cage/Samuel L Jackson internet nerd idol with his past roles. It's weird that he doesn't have a very vocal fanbase considering he's touched Transformers, The Matrix, Lord Of The Rings, Captain America and V For Vendetta.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 16:27
|
|
|
Elronds greasy, thin hair was pretty disgusting to take in -- just seemed sketchy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 16:35
|
|
|
I'm bummed that Ian McKellen hasn't updated his Hobbit blog since November. His posts were great.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 17:55
|
|
|
dolphins are gay posted:Hugo Weaving should be some sort of Nathan Fillion/Bruce Campbell/Nic Cage/Samuel L Jackson internet nerd idol with his past roles. It's weird that he doesn't have a very vocal fanbase considering he's touched Transformers, The Matrix, Lord Of The Rings, Captain America and V For Vendetta. The thing is, everyone you mentioned has a unique persona. The roles they've played defined themselves as actors and they monopolized on that. I mean, when you see Bruce Campbell or Samuel L. Jackson on the screen, you know what you're gonna get. Weaving, though--even though he's distinctive as gently caress (Remember the Agent Smith/Elrond jokes ten years ago?)--he molds himself to the role instead of the other way around. I still have problems imagining him, of all people, behind the mask in V for Vendetta.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 18:18
|
|
|
3Romeo posted:The thing is, everyone you mentioned has a unique persona. The roles they've played defined themselves as actors and they monopolized on that. I mean, when you see Bruce Campbell or Samuel L. Jackson on the screen, you know what you're gonna get.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 18:22
|
|
|
Above Our Own posted:I've seen V for Vendetta four times and until your post just now I don't think I knew it was Hugo Weaving. He really does lose himself in the role, kind of the Tom Cruise antipole. Same 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 20:40
|
|
|
Above Our Own posted:I've seen V for Vendetta four times and until your post just now I don't think I knew it was Hugo Weaving. He really does lose himself in the role, kind of the Tom Cruise antipole. I'm so glad V for Vendetta seems to be turning into somewhat of a cult classic. Its one of my all time favorite movies and I think one of the best revenge movies ever. When it came out I was kind of worried that it wasn't getting the attention it deserved, now its one of those movies you see every other day on FX or BBC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 21:34
|
|
|
I didn't like Weaving as Elrond. Maybe that was Jackson's fault though. My problem with Elrond is he seems way too harsh in the movies. Elrond in the books is more of a wise, kind, figure. I didn't really get a sense of that in the movies. Wise, yes. Kind, not really. It didn't ruin the movies for me it just didn't jive at all with my own perception of Elrond. They should have gone with David Bowie as Elrond 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 22:09
|
|
|
Vigilance posted:They should have gone with David Bowie as Elrond  That would have been amazing.Weaving was great, though. In the prologue especially. "ISILDUR!!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 22:17
|
|
|
Not sure why Bowie doesn't take more roles, the man has proven he can act. If you haven't seen it go check out "The Man Who Fell to Earth" -- it's great! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074851/
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
Also The Prestige, another goon favorite wherein he plays Nikola Tesla.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 22:28
|
|
|
The movies definitely toned down the characters. In the books, just about all of them had an epic awe-inspiring feeling that didn't translate to the films. It's been mentioned about Gladriel, Legolas, and Elrond already in the thread. I want to point out that it's a lot more difficult to convey that feeling in a movie, both because you have less space to develop characters and because certain metaphors are more difficult to pull off in film. I think Jackson made a wise choice when he decided to make the characters more human and relatable. I don't think it improves the characters really, I just think it was easier to successfully portray characters that way in this medium. There's nothing worse than trying to convey an epic character with depth and falling short.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 22:30
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:For someone who enjoys these movies, you sure do have a lot you don't enjoy about these movies. Yes, two or three minor things. I mean, they're fantastic movies but they're not perfect. Surely you can see that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 23:19
|
|
|
Octy posted:Yes, two or three minor things. I mean, they're fantastic movies but they're not perfect. Surely you can see that? VV Really I'm just poking a little fun at someone for being inconsistent, no malice in it. Above Our Own fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Feb 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 23:21
|
|
|
Above Our Own posted:So is your uncle going to ruin your immersion? I mean it's going to ruin mine, you know I would normally think "oh hey just a hobbit or whatever" but now I'm going to be like, gently caress that's someone's real uncle! Are we ragging on people for saying they didn't like casting decisions? Come the gently caress on, it's a movie. That's half of what movies are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 23:35
|
|
|
Nilbop posted:Are we ragging on people for saying they didn't like casting decisions? Come the gently caress on, it's a movie. That's half of what movies are. It's a casting decision for an extra, not a major role.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 23:40
|
|
|
That makes it even less important then!
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 23:43
|
|
|
Above Our Own posted:So is your uncle going to ruin your immersion? I mean it's going to ruin mine, you know I would normally think "oh hey just a hobbit or whatever" but now I'm going to be like, gently caress that's someone's real uncle! That's completely different. These kids appeared as different characters and races across three movies. My uncle, if he even makes the cut, plays a single character. It's nice to know my posts are memorable enough that you bring up things like my uncle, though. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 23:56
|
|
|
P Funk Chainsaw posted:
I wish I could say that I recognized him from Shortland St. or Spartacus...I recognized him as the bad guy from "Legend of the Seeker".  And I would've been all for David Bowie as Elrond, in his costume from Labyrinth, singing in elvish...
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 00:24
|
|
|
Gimmedaroot posted:And I would've been all for David Bowie as Elrond, in his costume from Labyrinth, Isn't there a Goblin King in the Hobbit!? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 02:52
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:Isn't there a Goblin King in the Hobbit!? Oh, man. That would be the greatest ninja casting EVER.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 03:19
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:Not sure why Bowie doesn't take more roles, the man has proven he can act. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv6mEv_rDdE
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 05:27
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:Isn't there a Goblin King in the Hobbit!? Yes, the goblin king is this guy. Barry Humphries. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 06:23
|
|
|
Bert Schnickt!* Seriously, Peter Jackson casts the best people. *this is a reference to Shock Treatment, the rarely seen Rocky Horror follow up. Ignore my nerd-out
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 06:30
|
|
|
Above Our Own posted:The movies definitely toned down the characters. In the books, just about all of them had an epic awe-inspiring feeling that didn't translate to the films. It's been mentioned about Gladriel, Legolas, and Elrond already in the thread. I genuinely sperged about the idea that Tolkein elves are a harder sell in the modern day. There's a lot of fantasy backlash since elves were full of a lot of the old school mythology baggage that are kind of touchy (the biggest being, elves are interesting and cool just on the sake of being elves, little drops in the book about elves being so awesome that can get tiresome taken the wrong way). It's why, strangely enough, I kind of always had a warmer spot for The Hobbit's more playful interpretation of them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 17:47
|
|
|
Dame Edna as the Goblin King???  Wow, that casting gets more and more interesting... I am guessing the goblins will be like the ones in Moria: smaller, crawling on walls, less 'orcish'...those I found creepier than Sauron's or Saruman's...
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
3Romeo posted:Weaving, though--even though he's distinctive as gently caress (Remember the Agent Smith/Elrond jokes ten years ago?)--he molds himself to the role instead of the other way around. I still have problems imagining him, of all people, behind the mask in V for Vendetta. Please tell me you guys have seen Hugo Weaving in Priscilla, Queen of the Desert! If not - fix that
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 12:54
|
|
|
Gimmedaroot posted:Dame Edna as the Goblin King??? Yeah a lot of people forget even a big "normal" orc isn't taller than a man, while a single goblin on its own just about scares a hobbit. Its just in a huge group they remind you of cockroaches.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2012 00:04
|
|
|
Huntersoninski posted:How many cool moments that were actually in the text were cut out so that, for instance, Sam could abandon Frodo at shelob's lair? Or so that Aragorn could fall off a cliff and make out with a horse?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2012 03:49
|
|
|
Presto posted:I'm re-reading the books right now, and as far as I can tell the answer to your question is: None. I'd say what actually happened at Shelob's lair was way, way cooler and more dramatic and tense and awesome. So there's at least that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2012 04:40
|
|
|
Huntersoninski posted:I'd say what actually happened . . . What "actually" happened is that an old man wrote some words in a notebook that were then typed up and sent to a publisher who sent it to a printer. Then some other guy made a movie about those words. His main concern was making three movies that interpreted the old man's words as an interesting and cohesive trilogy of films. That's what "actually" happened. I adore these books and have spent many hours obsessing over them separate from my time spent watching the movies. I listen to podcasts about them, retread them, listen to them (all of them) on audiobook, the whole nine yards. I am a huge, huge nerd. But they're still just books. The film makers did a remarkable job and honestly made just about the best films possible from the source material. Would I have watched an extra hour to see The Scourge of the Shire? Absolutely! It wouldn't have been the right choice to make as a film maker, though. The two products are in different mediums, are both excellent and neither diminishes the greatness of the other. People who have only seen the movies love them. People who have only read the books love them. Neither is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2012 06:14
|
|
|
Ooookay. But I'm still going to say that taking a character that - in the books AND in the movies - from his very first development was introduced as having made a promise to stick with Frodo and not to leave him, and having him just straight up leave him, was a terrible choice. There was no indication before this or after this that Sam wanted to leave or was resenting/wanting to break his promise. He was just told to leave and welp ok then, guess I'm off! If it had been in the book it would have been a terrible storytelling choice, and in the movies it was a terrible storytelling choice. Yes. I LIKE THE MOVIES. I think they did a GOOD JOB, and that the filmmakers were TALENTED. But I also think, objectively, some of the poo poo they altered was a terrible idea. Because that guy who wrote some poo poo in that notebook did so painstakingly and deliberately and maybe if it wasn't a good story to start with nobody would have wanted to adapt it and make those films anyone could enjoy. Jesus, you guys act like I've been calling for the films to be banned. I love them, I own the extended bluray set, I watch them in marathons with my friends and enjoy all the extra DVD content. As wonderful as the movies are, there are instances where they just missed the mark.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2012 07:05
|
|
|
Except that real people don't always live up to their promises 100% of the time, and sometimes it takes some adversity for that person to remember and fulfill their promise. I know this is fantasy, and archetypes, and not real people....but moviegoers tend to identify with characters who are more like them. Sam didn't just up and decide to leave Frodo because he was told to. He felt betrayed, and confused, and for once in his life completely alone. Promise or no promise I'd do the same loving thing he did, even if it didn't make a ton of sense at the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2012 07:22
|
|
|
And honestly, even though I didn't care for that scene, I never got the impression that Sam was going home. When someone says something hurtful like that it's not uncommon for the victim of the abuse to storm off, slam the door, and vent to themselves before cooling off and coming back. As Mahoning said it's something that most people go through once or twice and can relate to. pixelbaron fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Feb 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2012 07:33
|
|
|
^^^ Sure, but Frodo was literally at the doorstep of a deadly trap, and Sam knew it (even though he didn't know specifically what it was). I think in that instance, any good friend worth his salt would know better. I'd still call it a mistake. What happened in the book was such an awesome badass moment and they traded it in for making a character look like an idiot. For all that these movies are great, even for people who haven't read the book, I've had friends who haven't read the book call Sam a dumbass for that scene (mostly for the "angrily strangles lembas" moment). I think that whole plot device was kind of clumsily handled. In a production that huge, some things just aren't going to hit the high note, and that scene among others just falls really flat for me, and I'm not the only one who feels that way. With all the corrupt, confused, evil, and misled characters in that film (and in the book for that matter), Samwise was the one you could count on to make the right choice even at his personal risk. I think it was a really bad error of judgment to switch it up with regards to his character like that, especially without more explanation of WHY his promise to Gandalf suddenly doesn't matter at the exact moment the bad guy is literally leading Frodo into a trap (which Sam is aware of).
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2012 07:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:42 |
|
|
It's arguable that a relatable Sam who buckles under the tremendous emotional weight of everything works comes across a lot better in film han an epic paragon Sam who is infallible. But I think this is one instance where keeping the mythic paragon character could have been achieved.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2012 07:40
|
|