Elves and Hobbits!

[Kath]

As much as her continual appearance in the films began to get on my nerves I did think that Arwen was quite well done. The other Elves I found a bit bland (such as Arwen's guard person) or over the top (Elrond, Galadriel). The general appearance of the Elves was done well, they were tall and Cate Blanchett especially was very ethereal looking. I was very disappointed in the portrayal of Elrond to whom PJ did a great disservice. Elrond is supposed to be high and wise and dignified and they turn him into a jealous caricature.

The Hobbits were not as I had imagined them in the books at all. I had always had this vision of giant hamsters that walked on two legs - well not exactly but that's the best I can desribe them Sam I think I saw as being reasonably close to my imagination as he was nicely plump and Pippin at least had the personality perfect. Frodo I must say I was never keen on so with that the portrayal was very accurate!

[drigel]

the thing i regretted not seeing enough in the movies was the hobbit height point of reference. Very hard to do admittedly, but seeing how PJ dealt with Gollum proved to me it was doable. Lots of clever perspective tricks - yes - but (to me) not enough - and it was obvious when the little people stand ins were shot. Plenty of close ups or away shots, and plenty of hobbit only scenes, but not enough reference shots that portrayed that hobbits were not just people who were height challenged - but hobbits - 3-4 footers.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

I thought hobbits were done awesomely in the movies. The author of this thread made the point that Sam's the only one of the main four that acts or talks like a hobbit. I would say that that is accurate, both accurate for you to say and accurate for PJ to portray. Sam is the quintessinal (sp?) hobbit; the others are quite unusual for hobbits, particularly Frodo. Because of their high ancestry, and because of the unusual amount of knowledge they have about the world outside.

Elves were well done overall, I thought, but they seemed a bit too serious. Sure, Legolas provided the other end of Gimli's slapstick comedy (e.g., "Shall I describe it to you..."), and Elrond cracked a smile a grand total of one time, but most of the time the Elves seemed too heavy and serious. I mean, I know, these are weighty times, but c'mon. Sam did say in Book Two that "some [are] as merry as children." But again, overall I thought it was well done.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

My opinion is the twisted version of yours Folwren. I think the Hobbits were brilliant. But the Elves missed the mark.

There's a temptation to imagine the Hobbits as childish and I think Jackson and co. avoided this very well. The Hobbits were serious and chirpy and all of that good stuff but they never became a joke or a parody.

The Elves, on the other hand, were a bit of a parody. Now I'll be the first to admit that Elves are hard to become; their 'otherworldliness' is not something which many (any?) people possess. As a result they just kinda floated about followed by odd music and strange lighting and looking so serious! Again, very hard to capture, but I didn't think the Elves were particularly good at all. They just came across as snooty men, really. Awesome hairstyles though!

And that was about Hobbits and Elves in general, not specific characters.

[Folwren]

Originally posted by drigel:
the thing i regretted not seeing enough in the movies was the hobbit height point of reference. Very hard to do admittedly, but seeing how PJ dealt with Gollum proved to me it was doable. Lots of clever perspective tricks - yes - but (to me) not enough - and it was obvious when the little people stand ins were shot. Plenty of close ups or away shots, and plenty of hobbit only scenes, but not enough reference shots that portrayed that hobbits were not just people who were height challenged - but hobbits - 3-4 footers.

I think that's what disapointed me. You didn't get to actually see that they were that small. You did at times, but it wasn't remdined of you constantly. The part when Boromir stops Frodo at the Bridge when Gandalf falls and picked him up and carries him off was really, really well done, and is that the sort of thing you wanted more of?

Originally posted by Elladan and Elrohir:
I thought hobbits were done awesomely in the movies. The author of this thread made the point that Sam's the only one of the main four that acts or talks like a hobbit. I would say that that is accurate, both accurate for you to say and accurate for PJ to portray. Sam is the quintessinal (sp?) hobbit; the others are quite unusual for hobbits, particularly Frodo. Because of their high ancestry, and because of the unusual amount of knowledge they have about the world outside

Well, no...if you read the books carefully, you'll find that all four of them were very much hobbits when they left. Even Frodo. There's a certain character to them that goes beyond even the special shooting of the camera or spacing, that they didn't get many times in the movies. Of course, as the book goes on that changes, and really only Sam is left the most unaffected, but they are completely 'hobbit', if you follow me, at the beginning...and they continue to be until later in the TT.

Does any of that make sense? I'm trying to think on an empty stomach, and I find it's not working too well.

As for elves...no, they weren't all protrayed like the elves in the books, I won't argue with that, especially now that you've brought to mind Sam's quote. But I still liked 'em.

-Folwren

Edit: Now that Eomer's replied, I've got to say something more.

I might've guessed you'd say just about the opposite. I'm finding most people do in this matter.

I think it's the childishness in the hobbits that I miss most. If that's how it appears in the book, then I'll bet that's how Tolkien meant it to be and that is how their character was supposed to be formed and that's how he shaped them. Being able to write some myself, I know a little about character developement, and you don't just write a thousand and more pages about people and make them something they're not supposed be. For PJ to take the childlike character out of them makes them...short men and little else.

[drigel]

The part when Boromir stops Frodo at the Bridge when Gandalf falls and picked him up and carries him off was really, really well done, and is that the sort of thing you wanted more of?

YES exactly. IMO, the acting and portrayal was above par for the hobbits. It was the visual representation that I was trying to describe. I thought more emphasis should have been placed on the visual of what a hobbit looked like compared to men, dwarves, etc. Even hobbit POV would have helped. But for me - I needed to see more of those costly Council of Elrond shots where it showed that yes - a hobbit in a group of regular sized folks - ahhh - hobbits me sees

edit - as for the elves: Much harder for my minds eye to cast than hobbits. overall adequate casting and presentation. a little fru fru for my taste on the wardrobe but again - adequate. I like the effect of light in the eyes and faces. And if I can ever forget the overly done negative special effects on Galadrial in that one scene, I would even say that Blanchette did a decent job... but geez I cant....

[The Saucepan Man]

The Hobbits' heads were too small in relation to their bodies. I see them as having normal human-sized heads but shorter bodies. To me, this is really obvious in the "Fellowship line-up" at Rivendell, where their heads are tiny in comparison to the Men (and Wizard) in the Group. But this would have been rather difficult to remedy without using CGI for them most of the way through.

As for the Elves, why do they all have to have girlie-hair ( ), pouty lips and high cheek-bones? Effeminate does not, in my opinion, equal "other-worldliness". At least Elrond didn't look like a chorus-line extra.

[mark12_30]

Interesting discussion, folks.

I think a lot of our disappointment has to do with cutting-room decisions, and the time limits placed on movies. PJ shot lots and lots of footage that never made it anywhere near a DVD.

I always imagined elves as having powerful, yet slender, bodies and bony faces, so the high cheekbones etc didn't bother me. I thought they all should have been as bony-faced as Movie-Legolas (and Movie-Frodo; too bad he was so short, or Wood could have played an elf.) Movie-Elrond and Movie-Arwen, I thought, were not bony enough. (I've relaxed about that a bit, though. Maybe because I've been impressed with Liv Tyler lately. In interviews lately she seems to have some brains.)

Regarding somber elves: I remember seeing (somewhere) a clip of two elves running through the woods; it was a very playful clip, sort of looked like a game of tag. It was very un-somber. I mentally categorize it together with "Tra-la-la-Lally" (a personal favorite of mine.) But it never made it into the movie, because it did nothing for the plot. Too bad.

Movie-Hobbits likewise. I would especially have preferred more valor from Movie-Frodo. The hobbit-actors got lots of sword-training, but precious little of M-Frodo's bladework made it into the movie. Apparently PJ saw it as not doing much for the plot (I would heartily disagree; it was, I think, necessary for the character.)

M-Pippin and M-Merry I have little comment on, perhaps because lately I find the actors quite annoying.

M-Sam was fine. My only complaint: too bad he didn't slim down by the time they got to Mount Doom.

[Holbytlass]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

The Hobbits' heads were too small in relation to their bodies. I see them as having normal human-sized heads but shorter bodies.

I don't see you as being derogatory, SpM, but to me this implies more of 'little people' rather than hobbits. And (assuming) I would think as a whole little people would not want to be known as hobbits. It had been questioned why P.J. hadn't used little people as hobbits, like in Willow , but I don't remember what the reply was.

I haven't seen the new Charlie movie, maybe it does convey the head/body relation better.

[Holbytlass]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

The Hobbits' heads were too small in relation to their bodies. I see them as having normal human-sized heads but shorter bodies. To me, this is really obvious in the "Fellowship line-up" at Rivendell, where their heads are tiny in comparison to the Men (and Wizard) in the Group.

Or maybe you were thinking of human babies? I agree that in the Rivendell shot it was kind of weird looking. I don't remember anything else being "off". (P.S. like the new avvie)

Speaking in terms of generalizations, I saw the elves more as clones where as the hobbits seemed to have more and different personalities and I mean the 'crowds'.

[Orominuialwen]

Originally Posted by drigel

YES exactly. IMO, the acting and portrayal was above par for the hobbits. It was the visual representation that I was trying to describe. I thought more emphasis should have been placed on the visual of what a hobbit looked like compared to men, dwarves, etc. Even hobbit POV would have helped. But for me - I needed to see more of those costly Council of Elrond shots where it showed that yes - a hobbit in a group of regular sized folks - ahhh - hobbits me sees

I would agree with that. When I first saw FotR I hadn't ever read LotR, and I somehow got the impression that Hobbits weren't particularly short, Wizards were just really tall. I guess this means that the size difference between Gandalf and the Hobbits was well emphasized, but the difference between the Hobbits and the other characters wasn't shown nearly as well.