The Battle of the Five Armies, teaser trailer

I think she may have just nabbed it as long as she didnt get jiggy with that Dwarf, Kili, fili, Feely ? She has the deportment I think, she could be cool & aloof, not 'handy & randy'. I cant even be asked to distinguish between them all now, its such a fooked up bore fest of idiotic lunacy !.. Oh here I go again...my foreheads pounding... migraine coming on ! fook you Peejers   

azriel wrote:I think she may have just nabbed it as long as she didnt get jiggy with that Dwarf, Kili, fili, Feely ?

I'm pretty sure that one of the main reasons they wanted to add a female character was for romance, so yeah, I think Ronan (who would have been 16-17 during filming) would have been too young next to a then-34 year old Orlando Bloom and then-28 year old Aidan Turner.

Regarding the whole actors reading or not reading the books thing, I agree with Dave and Nora. I don't think it's essential for actors to read up on the source material for an adaptation, and in this case it would have been downright pointless given how much was changed.

I dont know ? Girls can look very womanly with correct lighting & make up ? & the way they carry themselves ? Elijah wasnt so very old when he played Frodo ? Orly wasnt that old was he ? Just dont give lip action ! ( & keep yer hands in yer pockets ! )   

Well I think EW was too young also (he was 18 during filming).  Orlando Bloom was 22 and while you can argue that he was too young, he's more distant and ethereal (some would say wooden) so I don't think his age was as important.

A love triangle involving a 34 year old and a 16 year old both would be pretty weird regardless of context, though.

Thats the thing. You could have a talented actress, even if she is young, that could play the part ,so, if its not in the book why the holy fooking Mother of God do we have to have Romance ?? !! No romance, no worries about age, cuz sex wouldnt come into it, no need for an issue. Just play an Elf, fight, look enigmatic, smile a bit but no hanky panky. Dwarves can do their thing without getting turned on for an Elf. Its ridiculous. Cripes, Galadriel is married to Celeborn but you dont see the bushes move ! tolkien didnt write that Galadriel & Celeborn couldnt join in the fight as "they wanted to be alone" ?   

Eldorion wrote:

A love triangle involving a 34 year old and a 16 year old both would be pretty weird regardless of context, though.

Classic cinema was far far weirder. Just one example: "Broken Arrow" is an excellent classic western, with a Romeo-and-Juliet plot involving Jimmy Stewart (43) and the Indian maiden Debra Paget (15!!!!!   )

Eldorion wrote:Regarding the whole actors reading or not reading the books thing, I agree with Dave and Nora.  I don't think it's essential for actors to read up on the source material for an adaptation, and in this case it would have been downright pointless given how much was changed.

I agree with this as well, given the sketchy/non existent characterization for most of the Dwarves for instance, I don't really see how it would have benefited the cast to read the book, beyond making it slighty less cringy watching them try appease the fans, I don't get the impression alot of them are really Tolkien fans, acting being just a job, these films being to them what the books are to many of us. Sean Connery apparently only read Three of the Bond books, once each, yet most people (not me) consider him the definite Bond despite a big difference between the on screen Bond and his literary counterpart.(or so I've heard).

With The Hobbit it's moot point for me anyway, Richard Armitage has proven time and again he's a very dedicated Tolkien fan and actor who takes the source material seriously, yet (as everyone know's) I can't bloody stand him in the films, and will finds it very very hard to suppress a cheer when Thorin finally buggers off to The Halls of Waiting/ star in Endless streams of whiny fangirl poetry.

I agree with Malick, Eldo, Dave, and Norc. I don't care if they've read the books or not, what I do care about is if the writers understand how to transfer the character to the screen.

Peter Dinklage and Emilia Clarke say on one of the GOT commentaries that they won't read ahead in the series until they've finished shooting a season or whatever because they don't want to have the book inform how they approach their character. If the writers adapt the character adequately, then they don't have to. And in the case of GOT I think they did a great job. I can really tell that they love the source material and want to do it justice.

Same thing with Martin Freeman and the Fargo TV series. He didn't go back and watch the movie to see what William H. Macy's character was like (they are similar characters in similar situations in the show and movie) because he didn't want it to change how he would approach this new character.

well I agree with myself.
because it makes the difference between a jobbing actor just getting paid, or someone like Viggo who actually became Aragorn, because he had studied the books, he knew why Aragorn felt and did the things he did, he understood the long backstory, he understood the relationship between himself and Eowyn, his regrets and his fears, it all shows on screen. Compare that with someone who has no love of the source, or thinks its all bullshit, or is there just because its cool to be in a blockbuster. If I was an actor I would want to do my best work and that would mean understanding what the heck the book was about. This applies mostly to Tolkien as it includes non humans. Armitage may think he understands Thorin, he has obviously read the book, but he hasnt actually understood Thorin at all, or he has deliberately ignored the original or he has been told to ignore it.

This is not the same as saying the actor has to be a fan or love the source. They dont, but they must at least understand it.

Mrs Figg wrote: Armitage may think he understands Thorin, he has obviously read the book, but he hasnt actually understood Thorin at all, or he has deliberately ignored the original or he has been told to ignore it.

That's my bet.

yeah probably   

I like to think that maybe one day I'll sit down and rewatch the hobbit movies, and they won't be all that bad. Just some dumb, fun, popcorn action. Then I'll get the blu-ray boxed set of all six movies and watch them now and again.

I like to think that. I wish I could enjoy things.

I enjoy dumb fun popcorn action sometimes (though there is a limit to just how dumb I'll go), but The Hobbit should be more than that. One can argue that this is just a case of having unrealistically inflated expectations, but I'd reply that PJ forfeited the right of The Hobbit movies to be evaluated free of context by tying them so closely to LOTR and having so many references and callbacks. When the movie itself is constantly trying to remind me of LOTR, I feel no compunctions about judging it for being so much less than LOTR.

That's a good point, Eldo. The Hobbit trilogy is doing everything in its power to avoid having to be judged on its own merits. Whether it's the film's ties to the legacy of Lord of the Rings (bad comparison) or the comparisons to its source material (yet worse so), Peter Jackson did not look to the Hobbit for inspiration. Or rather it might be more fair to say, that's all he looked for when he saw the novel: Inspiration. A footnote on which to cast his everlasting shadow, but Jackson mistook the stars in the sky for the reflection in the lake. The end result is this poor dilapidated beast of a film without an identity to call its own. Disrespect for the source material and a disservice to all involved.

"Jackson mistook the stars in the sky for the reflection in the lake. " RA
What a lovely sentence   

that's one of the things that would have been great if the Itaril character actually came to be, because a love triangle would be totally out of the picture with Saoirse being like.. 16-17 (she's my age)

Mrs Figg wrote:

This is not the same as saying the actor has to be a fan or love the source. They dont, but they must at least understand it.

yes, by all means, please, the actors have to understand their character, but not necessarily the whole universe, hype and ideas around it, that's all. like if i were to play Bilbo, i wouldn't look at Ian Holms' performance, i wouldn't look at the radio plays and i wouldn't feel the need to read LOTR to see what he becomes later or at all read the appendixes. Having read the Hobbit (the book) might be a pro, but in the end it's PJ's script your playing, not the book, so what he serves you, that's what you get. Although i must add, Martin Freeman does his research (i dunno if he read the book pre-shooting, but i think he has read it when he was young, not sure here), but as he says and as i've seen in those blog-videos, he talks alot with PJ and discusses the script for every scene, asking what motivates the character and etc. etc., he does his research, just perhaps not in the book kinda way. And it doesn't really make that much of a difference because in the end he does what any actor would do with a character, break them down and analyse them.

Recoveryanonymous wrote:That's a good point, Eldo. The Hobbit trilogy is doing everything in its power to avoid having to be judged on its own merits. Whether it's the film's ties to the legacy of Lord of the Rings (bad comparison) or the comparisons to its source material (yet worse so), Peter Jackson did not look to the Hobbit for inspiration. Or rather it might be more fair to say, that's all he looked for when he saw the novel: Inspiration. A footnote on which to cast his everlasting shadow, but Jackson mistook the stars in the sky for the reflection in the lake. The end result is this poor dilapidated beast of a film without an identity to call its own. Disrespect for the source material and a disservice to all involved.

Great way to put it.

azriel wrote:"Jackson mistook the stars in the sky for the reflection in the lake. " RA
What a lovely sentence   

  

not only did he mistake the stars in the sky for the reflection in the lake, the lake turned out to be a greasy puddle in front of MacDonalds.

Norc wrote:

Mrs Figg wrote:

This is not the same as saying the actor has to be a fan or love the source. They dont, but they must at least understand it.

yes, by all means, please, the actors have to understand their character, but not necessarily the whole universe, hype and ideas around it, that's all. like if i were to play Bilbo, i wouldn't look at Ian Holms' performance, i wouldn't look at the radio plays and i wouldn't feel the need to read LOTR to see what he becomes later or at all read the appendixes. Having read the Hobbit (the book) might be a pro, but in the end it's PJ's script your playing, not the book, so what he serves you, that's what you get. Although i must add, Martin Freeman does his research (i dunno if he read the book pre-shooting, but i think he has read it when he was young, not sure here), but as he says and as i've seen in those blog-videos, he talks alot with PJ and discusses the script for every scene, asking what motivates the character and etc. etc., he does his research, just perhaps not in the book kinda way. And it doesn't really make that much of a difference because in the end he does what any actor would do with a character, break them down and analyse them.

I guess my thought is that Actors seem to spend most of their time hanging round trailers twiddling their thumbs, how long would it take them to read a book?   some of them have time enough to film themselves in costume reacting to fans squeeing.   

you seem to spend a lot of your time on the internet why don't u just read a book? Obama seems to spend a lot of his time twiddling his thumbs at the oval office, why don't he just read a book? I seem to twiddle my thumbs a lot why don't i just read a book? the queen never smiles, why doesn't she read a book? my dog seems to be doing nothing all day why don't he just read a book? actors sit in their trailer a lot when they're not filming why don't they just read a book? no wait... they  read the script, take a break, get some rest, talk with people, relax, probably talks to their agent, other work related stuff, talk to their family, eat food, go to the toilet, reads the script again, goes for a walk, perhaps costume fitting, listens to music ..... yeah, why don't they just read a book.

*belch* ok   I can pick my nose AND read a book. lightweights.   

Mrs Figg wrote:*belch* ok   I can pick my nose AND read a book. lightweights.   

ummm...which hand do you turn the pages with?  

the crusty one