Discussion in 'Community' started by -Courtney-, Nov 25, 2006.
No ****ing way.
What does he even do?
Sure he looks awesome, but if he only has 30 seconds of screen time, then what's the point really?
Meaning if they had to edit out dwarves on the list there. Gloin being important. I say keep all thirteen! Bilbo is the lucky number!
Guessing you aren't counting Gandalf there.
But bringing only an extremely small group seems even more ridiculous. Also, that's how Tolkien wrote it, so changing the major characters by editing them out wouldn't be a good idea for the films. Also, you included rather a number of them as necessary already....
I'm just picking nits for the sake of it.
I've always thought Tolkien chose the perfect number of dwarves, and am somewhat aghast at the suggestion the story might be better off with a reduced company. The Hobbit is all about the company. I don't mind that some are short-changed in terms of character development. As I read "The Hobbit" I want to feel like I'm traveling with a large group, a band of brothers regarded by Thorin as worthwhile irrespective of their ability to handle their predicament or bring anything to the quest beyond their loyalty.
The dwarves are out to reclaim something important, a part of themselves, so let's see them (however briefly) instead of hearing about them. This means numbers, and in a book of this length that means there are some we will see little of. That's fine, though. The company are there, next to me as I read. I know that and that's a huge deal. As Thorin talks with Bilbo I like to imagine Fíli and Kíli are sat together by a fire, or that Dwalin is stood just out of earshot looking badass. Or that Bombur is worrying about the source of his next square meal. This is about numbers, but it's not about 'making up the numbers'. It's about making the quest inclusive. Like it's more than just Thorin's honour on the line, more than just his own personal beef. It's far, far better than an élite group of dwarves - all nicely labelled up with a particular ninja specialty - infiltrating Mirkwood without incident. That would be far too precise for this tale and give the impression Thorin is backed only by a particular clique, line or gang.
The size of the company also works wonders for Bilbo's character. When it's left to him to rescue the dwarves, by actions or plans, he has to think on a grand scale. Thirteen to rescue! He has a lot of work to do which, IMHO, is far better for him than less. Plus, can you imagine 'An Unexpected Party' with less than thirteen dwarves? Without the confusion and mess and intensity and yes... Bilbo's shock at what's come to his door? I can't.
sure, you can imagine any number of things that aren't on the page when you're reading a book. that's your prerogative. but that's going to be something personal and different for everyone and impossible to translate to the screen. when you're trying to adapt, as you say, a relatively short work of children's fiction and it turns into three bloated movies it might be a good idea to pare things down a bit. but we shall see.
If these movies can be accused of bloating, then it's not the number of dwarves that will be the problem. On screen they could just as easily be in the background as they are in my head as I read the book. What's important is that they are there, present on the quest.
well if they're trying to develop each of those characters instead of having them be part of the furniture then that indeed could be part of the problem.
Agreed, but that's a different issue to simply having them there.
EDIT: I should say that I'm probably going to see the film and think it's awesome however long it is, though.
i kind of want to take this discussion further but we should probably just wait four days.
We'll all be in a better position then.
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe: 37492 words, one film.
The Hobbit: 95022 words, three films.
Then there are all the movies about Jesus' last days, and how many pages are they in the Bible?
It's not the page count, it's how you handle all the stuff that is hand waved in the book (The dwarves had a discussion. They traveled for a week in the moors. They had a fight). And there's much more of that in the Hobbit than in the Lord of the Rings, where discussions and journeys were written completely open.
it's been a few years since i read it, but are important elements of the story often hand waved in the book?
No, but they do offer opportunities for on screen character development not taken in the book.
TV Spot #12.
EW's insight into the music of ME, with bits of an interview with Howard Shore. Chances are that I'll grow as obsessive-compulsive about this trio of soundtracks as I was over the LOTR one...
Does anyone think that we'll get a Hobbit Symphony to go with the Lord of the Rings symphony?
*imagines epic symphonic War of the Ring*
I hope this movie will be good!!!!!!
*dies and goes to Heaven at the mere prospect*
Because there are times when a simple "like" isn't enough to convey one's enthusiasm...
There isn't a word, let alone a "like".
It won't be now that you said it
It seems that someone has got their priorities straight:
So would we all, Sir Ian, so would we all...
He did say in one interview (or was it in a LOTR DVD extra? I can't remember) that Cate Blanchett is probably the only woman in the world who could turn him straight. Or something along those lines.