I LOVE this trailer!!!

When the Dwarves start singing it instantly gives me that mystic feel of Middle Earth that I felt when watching the LOTR movies.

I have only read the 3 LOTR books & have debated on wether to go ahead & read the Hobbit now or wait for the movie, but once i saw the trailer I picked the Hobbit book up & began reading as I am so pumped for the movie now!

_________________
Cold be heart hand and bone cold be travellers far from home
They do not see what lies ahead when sun has faded and moon is dead

^ Read it, READ IT, READ IT!

Lol. There's been a rule in our house ever since the release of FotR. You have to read the book before the movie and I'm proud to say that I met that quote thrice times over. I was worried for my brother because he's not much of a reader, but he's just finished reading The Hobbit, so proud, lol.

Anyway, moving back on to the trailer. This is something I noticed nearly right away on the first day but have only now just thought of bring it up, did anyone notice Bilbo's line mirroring Frodo's line from RotK involving the Red Book?

Frodo: My dear Sam.
Bilbo: My dear Frodo.

_________________


~Old lurker from '06 crawling back for another adventure.~

You may call me Cazz.

I think I watched it five times. I loved it and thought the dwarves were amazing! I think Fili and Kili might get a fangirl following! My favorite parts were the Rivendell sequence though I'm puzzled why Galadriel was stroking Gandalf's beard. I felt it hinted at some romance.

_________________

Faith isn't the ability to believe long and far into the misty future.
It's simply taking God at His Word and taking the next step Joni Erickson Tada

^ I think the Gandy/Gladdy thing is going to be about the White Council. Apparently Galadriel was part of this council of wise.

The story goes that when the five wizards were sent to Middle Earth, they formed a council and Saruman was made the head of it. Galadriel wanted Gandalf to be the head of the council, but Gandalf refused, he knew that if he was the head of the council he'd be bound to one place, like Saruman is at Orthanc. He knew he'd be able to do his job better if he was mobile and actually living with the peoples of Middle Earth.

_________________


~Old lurker from '06 crawling back for another adventure.~

You may call me Cazz.

I'm not sure why Galadriel's wish that Gandalf be the head of the Council should necessarily lead to this (in my opinion) quite intimate gesture -- but that's speculation anyway. I'm guessing any context will help in some measure (I don't suspect Jackson will indulge in an actual romantic moment here), but how this will play in context is now the question, before the subjective opinions fly.



As for the trailer in general, I'm not excited, although I liked the song well enough, and there are some nice visuals here and there.


With respect to some of the Dwarves, Jackson appears to have put Tolkien aside in the name of Hollywood and/or visual distinction. I can agree with the latter in general (nothing wrong with the notion of visual distinction itself of course, and it was somewhat expected), but once again it's about measure: did the filmmakers really have to go so far as to give us unbearded Dwarves! Or an axe stuck in Bifur's head? Or 'starfish style' hair? Or wasn't Bombur's girth enough of a distinction without the bare chin and seeming 'hair necklace'?

Granted sillification is subjective, but to my mind we have crossed the line here in some respects; and in any case I find the lack of beards to be a needless casting aside of Tolkien's ideas, to seemingly bow to other needs -- or at least the filmmaker's opinion of what is needed.

The whole Galadriel stroking Gandalf's beard thing really annoys me.
I'm not going to be able to explain this well but I'll try. To me it feels sort of patronising and out of sync. OK, yes Galadriel is an awesome elf and she's one of the Noldor etc etc but Gandalf is a Maia for heaven's sake!
I don't know, that scene just feels like they're trying to portray Galadriel as more powerful or something. I don't know, I can't explain it properly, it just feels strange.

_________________

All by Bellatrix
Married Nymphadora Tonks 29/6/13

I felt the whole beard stroking thing was was different. The dwarves don't really bother me, but I think they made Fili and Kili beardless to make them kinda reject their culture, though the Bashki version of the Hobbit is more accurate than Peter's version. Saw it on the One Ring.net.

_________________

Faith isn't the ability to believe long and far into the misty future.
It's simply taking God at His Word and taking the next step Joni Erickson Tada

But why should they reject their culture?

'Indeed this strangeness they have that no Man nor Elf has ever seen a beardless Dwarf -- unless he were shaven in mockery, and would then be more like to die of shame than many other hurts that to us would seem more deadly. (...)' JRRT, The Later Quenta Silmarillion

I rather think it's for Hollywood reasons -- don't give a beard to the 'eye candy' dwarf, and in the case of Bombur's bare chin, in the name of visual distinction.


I note that in one of the video blogs someone joked that one of the Dwarves was beardless perhaps because he was young; but that won't work, if the humour was meant to plant an internal reason in viewer's heads, considering Tolkien's Dwarves were born bearded.

^ They're born with beards? Wow. In what work was that written? I can't recall...


I don't personally have a problem with the Gandy/Gladdy moment. There is no romance in the book so ergo, they wouldn't dare putting anything so major in the movie, so I'm glad we see eye-to-eye in that. We know that these two movies will touch on the White Council, of which Gandalf and Galadriel are members, Gandalf's expedition to Dol Guldur in Mirkwood is speculated to be explored, as this is where he found Thrain. It's obviously a plot device that the writers are utilizing to tie LotR to The Hobbit. In terms of a book, the ring had ample strength as a device to tie the two together, along with the simple presence of characters in both stories, but in film, where so much is visual, a simple shot of the ring likely won't do the job, I can guarantee that if the ring was the only tie between the LotR movies and The Hobbit movies many movie fans would feel cheated, even if it was more true to the book. As for the actual physical moment between Gandalf and Galadriel, I see the moment as very similar to Galadriel touching Aragorn's cheek in the FotR EE, important plot points were being discussed there, I suspect it will be the same here. To be fair, I can see why people are a little confused and worried, it looks as though Galadriel is comforting Gandalf, and he's been known to doubt himself before, so perhaps this has some relevance too.

Man, we're almost completely reconstructing the scene, lol.

We're still a long way out from opening night, I wouldn't be making judgements yet. PJ may explain between now and then. I'm first and foremost a fan of Tolkien and LotR, but I'm also a fan of film making, so I can understand why things are changed and I'm still confident that Peter, and more importantly, Fran & Phillipa, won't let us original fans down. LotR fans have had a wonderful reputation of being welcoming and understanding in the past to PJ and his team, lets not cheapen that just yet.

_________________


~Old lurker from '06 crawling back for another adventure.~

You may call me Cazz.

There's also the fact that film is an entirely different medium from literature, so it's not going to perfectly reflect the book. And if you look at 13 main characters from a movie director's perspective, of course you're going to say to yourself, "we need a way to distinguish these people or else they're all going to melt in to one crowd." We just should hope that PJ captures the essence of Middle-earth the same way he did in LotR.

(I'll admit, though, that I'm not as outraged at Kili as I probably should be because he did turn out very handsome. I hold that he might be part elf/human, though.)

_________________

To be more precise than I was above, it is said that the 'Naugrim have beards from the beginning of their lives, male and female alike.' I suppose someone could quibble with the interpretation (if there's nothing else on the matter) that they were 'born' with beards, but in any case I don't think just saying that a given Dwarf was 'young' works (not that you said that, again, someone in the video blog said it, and jokingly). I also note Christopher Tolkien's own comment here: 'the Dwarves are bearded from birth, both male and female (section 5).'

This was published in The History of Middle-Earth series, The War of the Jewels, The Later Quenta Silmarillion, section 5, Of The Naugrim And The Edain



OK but let me be clear

Where we see eye to eye is that we both think Jackson will not dare to indulge in a romance here, which does not mean I necessarily approve of this gesture between these characters, in any context.




That's my guess too, but (and not that you said otherwise) simply because one is concerned for another being does not necessarily make this gesture fitting for the characters as Tolkien drew them. It's subjective yes, but I'm betting there will be enough people who will think Tolkien would never have countenanced such a gesture between these two characters, even if Jackson plays it as a caring moment.





OK but this is a fact that I think the most ardent purist already agrees with. Generally speaking now, Jackson fans have been posting that 'books and films are different' (or similar) for a long time, often enough following negative criticism in threads -- and in my opinion it sort of implies (even unintentionally) that 'someone' doesn't understand this, or needs to be reminded of it.

I'll also note that such statements do not necessarily explain a single specific change Jackson has made, and I add that because such comments often don't go beyond the mere generalization, that is, it seems to be 'the reply' (as in the only reply) to negative criticism as if it somehow works as a coverall defense. Again it only speaks to a mutually agreed upon point: we can all agree that the mediums are different, and that perfection is not possible, but what about film made X change necessary?




Agreed, and that's why I say the general idea is reasonable enough at least. But once again (and once again not that you said otherwise), this alone can hardly be some sort of coverall explanation for 'anything' in the name of distinction. As I say it's about measure, and this is subjective surely, but I never thought any director would come up with some of the things Jackson has actually done here -- and where is the line drawn, especially when we toss out such a fundamental aspect of Tolkien's Dwarves (beards)?

In other words, if we put aside such a fundamental notion, as Jackson has done with at least one Dwarf (again I would add Bombur here), the door seems open very wide in theory. Could another Dwarf be tall as long as the writers give him an invented backstory (mixed blood) to explain it? It could even be humourous to some.


Obviously Jackson didn't go there, but the point is that this explanation only goes so far. To my mind it's not compelling enough as to why any film director needed to indulge in unbearded Dwarves. Peter Jackson chose to, yes, but did visual distinction demand this measure?

Actually I'm not sure there exists any film-based explanation that I would find compelling enough here. I assume that we had at least a room full of creative people who were trying to bring this book to film while being faithful to the source material, and yet they couldn't (seemingly) find 'enough' distinction without giving us unbearded Dwarves? Obviously I think they could have, or let's say that I can't agree with the opinion that they could not have...

... if anyone in that room were to suggest that something about film as film simply didn't allow it



And given what the design team ended up with, using Tolkien-written source material very arguably could have given them at least one idea for greater visual distinction, at least for a couple of Dwerrows!

Aw, you're making me sad. You make very compelling arguments! Myself, I'm a purist at heart, but I try not to let it interfere with my enjoyment of the movie. As I said before, not only to remind you but also to remind myself!, the film isn't going to reflect the book to the letter, and the most I'm hoping for anyway is that it reflect the sense of adventure and magical beauty that makes Middle-earth Middle-earth. (Also, that it's another fine, Oscar-winning film. )

_________________

That's been my thought, too. Since the first time I saw the trailer I saw the parallel to FotR and Aragorn, and then everyone started freaking out about it. While I just sat here like, "Erm....she's done it before?"



While readers of The Later Quenta Silmarillion will know that a beardless Kili is impossible because both men and elves have seen them, I think the general viewing audience will not. It is entirely plausible that a young dwarf who has seen the ruin of his people and is wandering land with a homeless, bedraggled, dethroned king, would feel frustration at the ways of his forefathers that (in his mind, possibly) could have gotten them into this. Had the dwarves had better relations with elves or humans, maybe, this wouldn't have happened. So he would want to see what the rejection of those ways could bring - it may mean a return to prosperity or standing. Now I'm not saying that is the line they will take, but it is certainly a possibility for explaining rebellious acts, if they want to go there.


Elthir, you bring up good points. But I'm pretty sure you've already stated the main reason for beardless dwarves.

There has to be that draw. As much as I love PJ and his work on LotR and so on, there is no getting away from the fact that these movies are made to make money, and pretty people draw in more money.

As to the "why would someone change x from the book" question, filmmakers are artists and want to add something of their own into their creations. Even if it's just changing the characters clothing (why isn't there discussion on their lack of clearly defined colored hoods?) or their hairstyles, it stamps it as that director's own work and adds a new flavor that is unexpected by everyone. Is it wrong to do so? Who knows? But it happens.

_________________
going on a journey through my old claims

Ah but Cate Blanchett hasn't done this before of course, that I recall, even if you think it's equivalent enough to another gesture between Galadriel and another character; and (judging from the thread so far) I take it that the gesture you're referring to doesn't actually appear in theatrical versions?



But here you are simply inventing a backstory (that you feel is plausible) to explain something that runs wholly counter to the Dwarves as Tolkien drew them.

As I say, I could invent backstory for the 'somewhat tall' Dwarf too, and the fact that non-readers won't necessarily blink an eye merely illustrates that they don't know, and can't know, what is or is not faithful to Tolkien.




They surely do. But 'money over art' or 'money over faithfulness' is not exactly a position I, or anyone, need to agree with for any given alteration. Artists, even collectively, who bow to making the largest pile of jools over art, are not immune to criticism (not that you said they were, or should be).




Well, I was making a point about the often raised statement 'books and films are different mediums', and as I say, we can all agree that the mediums are different, and that perfection is not possible, but what about film made X change necessary? That's a specific question that I think helps illustrate that the filmmakers are making many choices based on opinion, as opposed to X being 'necessarily necessary' due to something about the medium of film.


As for Jackson wanting to put his own stamp on things: no one that I've ever read (on the web) desired a slavish interpretation, but as David Bratman notes in his essay published in Tolkien on Film, the filmmakers have rather consistently stated or implied that they pursued a faithful adaptation of the source material...

... so given that general platform, it's a balancing act, and quite subjective of course where criticsm is concerned.

Ah. I remember now.



Because in all fair right, Gandalf is eons ahead of Galadriel in terms of age & wisdom, ergo, it doesn't make sense for Galadriel to be comforting him. It would be like a teacher trying to tell a professor how to do his job.


At the end of the day, PJ is an innovative director. That's why the leaps and bounds in performance capture were able to grow and mature under his watch. And an innovator is as an innovator does, continuously evolving. I hate to make it sound like I'm trying to explain away PJ's stamp on Middle-Earth, but I feel myself quite torn. Tolkien's writings were my first love, and will always be my foremost love in terms of novels, PJ's movie adaptions were the films that plunged me into the world of film-making and they too will always be my first cinematic love. I am that 50/50 person sitting on the fence devoted to both parties. But honestly, Elthir, you're a fan after my own heart! I can tell you've spent many an hour between the pages of Tolkien's writings.


This is a factor for me too, lol. Call it human nature, sub-conscious primitive programming, or just downright eye-candy, lol.

Anyway, we can debate artistic license and the bending of Tolkien's words to suit a modern audience till the cows come home, but that the direct root of the two topics we're deciphering. That is, Kili's beardless-ness and Gandalf and Galadriel... In actual fact, all 13 Dwarves have facial hair in some form or another. Kili's is a close juvenile stubble of course, but it's definitely facial hair. This could be the interpretation of his Dwarvish youthfulness? Me personally, I seem to remember Fili being the youngest in the book, and I'm more concerned with Kili looking the youngest. I could be remembering wrong though, of course.

As for Galadriel and Gandalf, something that just occurred to me whilst re-watching this trailer just now, do the high Elves of Middle-Earth even know that the Istari are in fact Maia?

_________________


~Old lurker from '06 crawling back for another adventure.~

You may call me Cazz.

We should probably start a separate thread for this. Gripes, after all, are a time-honored tradition among Tolkien fans.

_________________