Cool News
LORD OF THE RINGS casting: Merry confirmed
Alright folks, Joram over at RingBearer.Org was the first site to come forward with this fella as being associated with the role of Merry in LORD OF THE RINGS
Well... He looks right doesn't he? He's fantastic on the PBS's MYSTERY! (Yes, public television often rocks!) But is he indeed part of the Fellowship? Yes. Dominic Monaghan is indeed playing Merry, I got it confirmed by a couple of wee folks. Not only that... BUT... he is one of the mystery 3 that Peter eluded to me about. So that STILL leaves two others that have major roles, played by NOT BIG NAMES, but have been signed on completely in the film. Hmmmm.... 2 more to go.... This is a tough series of riddles. However, I have to say that ol Dominic seems to fit right in there with Elijah, Billy and Sean. I think they all have that Hobbit-y look that will eventually age into that Holm-y look given many more decades.
-
+ Expand All
-
Yea he looks right for it, excellent.
-
This kid looks ok--a little young, maybe? But then, aren't they all (the actors playing hobbits, that is)? Well, except that guy they picked for Pippin--he looks the best of the "young" hobbits so far.) By the way, if it hasn't already been suggested, allow me to be among the first to recommend David Bowie for the role of Elrond. He's got that ageless-kinda-elfy-look, but is obviously old enough to bring the age & dignity the role demands. And he's a decent actor, to boot!
-
"How did you find Mordor?"
"Ey, we turned left at greenlund!"
(BTW, I'M FIRST. :P)
-
These movies are gonna freakin' rock...Thank U DeLuca for having the balls to make all three...You will be justly rewarded...
-
well he certainly looks country Brit to me, whatever that's worth.
Harry you seem be having a lot of difficulty with this cast thing for LOTR, shooting starts on the 19? and we still have only 9 faces to go with the characters, whats up? Is this production so wrapped up in secrecy that it's confounding all attempts at espionage? -
9 faces eh?
so who is that then, i'm losing track here...??
elijah wood(frodo), this guy as merry, the other bloke for pippin, sean astin(sam), ian holm(bilbo), ian mckellan(gandalf), christopher lee(saruman), timothy spall(gimli), liv tyler(arwen), stuart townsend(aragorn)....i'm sure there are others, i just cant think right now. -
Well! Who would have thought it? I think it's very brave of Peter Jackson to go with these relatively uninitiated chaps.
And with all of Hollywood approaching him, cap in hand, I hope this is an indication that the '$20 million club' is being closed for good.
With such a wealth of untapped talent out there, lets hope the same greedy few who turn up in movies again and again are pushed aside for a while at least. -
I hope he's not dragging Patricia Routledge with him though! So far, so.. mostly good. Nam
-
He looks perfect ... Now if they only could continue the perfection with Julian Sands as Legolas. Timothy Spall as Gimli. Max von Sydow as Denethor. Rowan Atkinson as Grima Wormtongue (still hoping for Jeffrey Combs tho). Edward Norton as Eomer. Cate Blanchett as Galadriel. David Bowie as Elrond. Patrick Stewart as Theoden. Uma Thurman as Eowyn (Not Galadriel). Rik Mayall as the voice of Gollum.
But this is my dreamcast maybe not PJ's ... but I still firmly believe that he's on the right track with the casting. My hopes gets higher for every day that goes by for this (I hope) awesome film. I say film, 'cause I still see it as a long wonderful epic saga, despite it will be in three parts. -
I read this a couple of days ago over at Ringbearer.org when Harry was still having his unfortunate problems, but they mentioned that the picture was a few years old. I think that he looks nearly perfect though and add a couple years of age on him and he would look more like the age of Billy Boyd who should look a bit younger as Pippen.
-
Just for the record, that's the age they give at Ringbearer.org. The picture is probably at least four years old, I guess. I have a feeling a lot of these actors already look a bit older than the pictures we've seen of them, even without makeup.
Alright Joram, let's get Gimli and Legolas now!
Oh, and someone earlier mentioned something about the filming to start on the 19th. I believe that date has been moved back a bit, and as I understand it, the complete cast is due to be announced officially at the end of the month. It was reported recently somewhere that Deluca supposedly said they're still not sure about the Hawke/Thurman involvement. So, it's quite possible that the cast hasn't been nailed down yet. Perhaps, the filming will end up being pushed back even further? Naturally, I hope not! -
the filming will start at october 11th now...
-
People keep suggesting the Glam Man (Bowie) for Elrond, but I thought Deluca shot that down in one of his E-mail responses (on either Joram or Xoanon's site). To me, Bowie seems too obvious and too stereotypical. Has anyone though about Alan Rickman? He has that resonating voice, great screen presence, an air of dignity, and his look is just "different" enough that you could convince me that's what elves look like. He often gets cast as the over-the-top bad guy in Hollywood movies (e.g., Hans Gruber, Nottingham - the bright spot in the Costner Robin Hood) and he plays them well, but he's also played more subdued roles with the same quality result (Sense and Sensibility comes to mind). They probably couldn't get him, it's just another meaningless suggestion from someone who knows nothing about film.
-
I've mentioned it elsewhere, but I've kinda seen country singer Rodney Crowell in the role of Elrond. Don't know if he can act, but he looks the part right down to the pointed ears. Also like Julian Sands as Legolas. Suggestion (and a darned good one) from a fellow named Piricom to cast Theoden: Kirk Douglas. He's got a mild speech impediment from the stroke, but it's KIRK DOUGLAS after all! (As long as nobody dares think of son Michael as anything -gack!), Still considering Wolf Kahler (the froglike Nazi from Raiders of the Lost Ark and Army of Darkness) as Grima. Just to see Chris Lee kick his butt! (Although I hear the Souring of the Shire has been cut from the script - first major error.)
-
Gee harry, your right! He does really fit in and look right doesn't he!.... That is he does if you believe, as most of the posters here apparently do,that teenagers are just perfect to play hobbits that by complete agreement of all that read tolkien, look at least late 20's, early 30's... but golly, who cares about that stuff! What's important is casting people that teenagers will relate to, so forget about 30 year old actors! Everyone knows kids won't want to see them! Gross!
***mandatory disclaimer:these movies could still rock, who knows, but i hope we can still feel strongly about these things without being labelled negatively**** -
it's been about four or five years since the last time i read LOTR (that's just the last time, mind you, not the first time). if i remember right, the hobbit foursome were all considered quite young, despite their ages implying in our years that they were old enough to be in boring careers already. 16-24 year old actors seem to match quite readily. in response to brian d., why does casting teenagers suddenly render the movie a typical hollywood pandering-to-the-younger-generation movie? and to sarin...calm down. for one thing, it's warwick DAVIS. and does it really matter if PJ uses cg to do what may seem politically incorrect? if he wants to digitally shrink people, then that's his business....here's my casting hopefuls. i'm still wanting to see eric idle or michael palin in some sort of role. jeffry combs would be perfect as wormtongue. what about melanie lynskey, who played opposite kate winslet in "heavenly creatures"? in many ways, her performance was better than kate's. she's pretty much an unknown at that.
-
This guy looks great as Merry (yes, the picture is several years old) and can act - I've seen him on Mystery. To BrianD, who said that by the complete agreement of all who read Tolkien the hobbits look late 20's or at least 30 - gee, I guess you haven't been reading these boards, right? There is NOT complete agreement on this at all. The reason many people posting here think late teens or early 20's is fine for hobbits (though don't forget Elijah Wood is the only teenager, and Sean Astin is 28, I believe)is that hobbits live much longer than humans and their coming of age is 33, not 18 or 21, so in many people's minds a hobbit 33= a human 18 to 21. Pippin especially was treated at first as very young and irresponsible by the other characters since he had not yet reached 33, and I always thought of him as a teenager. As for little people - most little people (and all of the little people actors I can think of) do not look like perfectly proportioned humans. They are usually a bit misshapen - head too big, arms and legs too short, etc. That's why I think PJ has not cast them - it's not some form of discrimination against little people (does anyone remember if he discussed this in the questions and answers?)
-
Brian D -- Maybe you intended it
as hyperbole, but there is only
one "teenager" playing a hobbit.
Sean Astin and Billy Boyd ARE in
their late 20s, I believe. And
as many others have stated, Frodo
SHOULD look younger because the
ring slows his aging.
Sarin rufus -- Peter Jackson
chose not to cast little people
for two reasons: One, he wanted
a bigger pool of actors to choose
from. Two, they don't match
Tolkien's description of hobbits.
Hobbits have basically the same body proportions as normal human beings, except for their feet. -
"I've heard people say that hobbits aint meant to be dwarves,bullshit,than why shrink them!" --- It's the PROPORTIONS, for cryin' out loud! Not the size. Hobbits are proportioned like human children, NOT like little people. Everyone who's read the books (including Jackson) knows this. It's one of the best decisions he's made on this project. "WARWICK DAVIES looks like so called regular people,therefore whats the excuse,his acting skills certainly aren't in doubt." --- Whether or not you think Warwick Davis looks like "regular people" does not change the fact that he DOESN'T look like a hobbit. Neither does any other little person. Period. "This film could have brought some much needed dignity to the small people in hollywood after years of suffering for the purposes of comedy value,...." ---It is not the job of this film or the filmmakers involved to make some kind of political statement about the "dignity" of little people. It's Jackson's job to make hobbits look like they're supposed to, in whatever way he chooses. Any little person who decides to become an actor has to realize that his prospects for roles are going to be limited no matter what. If they don't know that going in, they're fooling themselves. They usually end up playing Santa's elves in TV commercials. It's too bad, but that's just the way it is. Would you like to see a little person playing Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind? No, because they don't fit the part. "Im sure that the thinking of hollywood will forever be changed after this movie comes out and the use of small people will become less,.." Doubt it. It's easier just to hire a little person IF that's what you need. Jackson doesn't need them, because they simply don't look like hobbits. It's simple, really.
-
I guess it's not bad that I only flinch at one of the people casted so far, but I need to whine a little anyway.
Liv Taylor as Arwen is to me a distressing prospect. Liv Taylor has (in my opinion) only played one part, in five or so different movies, and suspect that part rather resembles her off-stage personality. She's not a very good actor, and I don't think she looks the part either. If we get a cute and shy, mumbling Arwen, I will fucking croak! This is no way to treat my favourite LOtR babe!
That is my only complaint however. I have an great deal of faith in this project, Peter Jackson, and even the studio (almost).
Btw, I think it's right to have fairly young actors as the hobbit crew. Pippin, Merry and Frodo were in their tweens (remember the expression), were they not? -
I agree with everyone who has given reasons why casting real little people is a bad idea. It truly is, like many of you have said... they don't have normal proportions. Hobbits have to, to be true to Tolkien's vision... but the bigger concern, is really that what we have here is a movie in which the MAIN CHARACTERS are these smaller people, this was true in Willow also, which I liked... but in this movie, there are so many factors which must come together about the actors who play the Hobbits... and they must be truly good actors. There is nothing inherant about real little people that makes it unlikely that they would be good actors, there is however something inherant about their current population that makes it very unlikely they could provide ENOUGH talented actors for this film. And that is how small (no pun intended) of a population it is. I'm sure there is some equation you could work out to figure out, how many very talented actors with all the other factors they need there are in the regular population, and then determine how fewer there would be in relation to how fewer their population is. And this is all assuming the concern of them not having the correct proportions wasn't there, which it is.
Now, the guy who brought this up... kind of ended with the idea that they should at least START casting some real little people, I would think he would at least realize that it would be a mistake to mix and match! They obviously need consistency. -
"That leaves you the perfect niche for elf (and pardoxiacally orc casting as well), ELVES: The most "beatiful" (whatever that means I'm not going to open that can of worms here) people, men and women, average to delicate build". Actually, Elves were described as being taller than Men, so if you cast "great big huge guys" to play Men, you'd have to find REALLY great big huge guys to play the Elves.
-
Look, fanboys, let's stay on track here. Here it is: LOTR is a work of fiction. J.R.R. Tolkien made it up. I don't care how many appendices he wrote, what amount of amazingly detailed background he created. Nonetheless, it's fiction, a fantasy whipped up out of the ether. That's why you sound so freaking ridiculous everytime you screw up your face, ball up your fists and scream, "No, nonononono, that's not the way it's supposed to be! Peter Jackson, I'm not your friend anymore!" You sound like little children told that Santa doesn't exist. (Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you hadn't heard.) Fanboy, relax, it's just art, it's just a little light and shadows flickering in the dark against a shiny surface. It won't bring you redemption, nor will it get you a date with the girl in second period. It'll just take a few hours out of your day that otherwise would have been spent figuring out how to get rid of that pesky acne. So, enjoy it, if you can. As for the casting of the Hobbits... may I see all the hands of those who have actually seen a Hobbit? Bueller? No one? Just as I thought. Yeah, I know how Tolkien describes them. I read the books over and over too. But, here's the kicker, I always pictured them to be short teenagers. I know, I guess that makes me retarded or something. But, see, it all depends on your imagination. I have to break this to you carefully, but, ahem, you are going to see Peter Jackson's imagination with this film, not yours. I know, I know, it's okay, it's a hard truth to swallow, but you'll be happier now that you know. Here, drink this, you'll feel better. Good, now go play some more Nintendo.
-
I'm glad that some one mentioned that the photo is a few years old, cuz this guy looks young enough to play Pippin. But he does have the right "hobbitish" look. Are there any recent photos of him on the net?................
Still more casting to go. I suppose that when the cast list is finally made public we'll find out if any characters have been left out of the movie. -
elanorsam, i respectfully disagree...while it is true that some posts have argued as you do, the facts are that while you are correct in the 33 (may) equal 18 issue, you are unquestionably mistaken about the ages of the hobbits in the books... frodo, for example, was 50 when the quest began, so even allowing for youthful features granted by the ring, there is no way that 50 equals 18 or 20...the same for sam and the others, though you are right about pippin... my point remains that the decisions seem guided by demographic concerns rather than being true to the books-- that's ok (though mistaken in my view), but lets not kid ourselves while we're doing it that the age of frodo and the others is in fact faithful...
-
In the first age, the pysical appearance of the Eldar would in general be more impressive than that of the Edain, but by then end of the third age, the Eldar have diminished through sheer length of time, as well as exile from Valinor. I would image the mighty of Noldorian descent ("High Elves") such as Elrond or Galadriel would likely have diminished less so than other of the Eldar, especially the Sindar (who never went to Valinor) -- Legolas and the folk of Lorien would be Sindarian.
-
Brian D> Frodo's aging *stopped* once he became the keeper of the ring (33 years old) at his coming of age. Therefore he must look as if he's in his very early 20s or very late teens.
-
Well, I suppose I can see why you're paranoid about going for the Scream audience...I've worried about that in other movies. But with the possible exception of Liv Tyler, who I happen to think is good for the part, None of the casting here smacks of "ageism". The simple fact is that, whatever their ages, Hobbits are like children, both physically and metaphorically. That's fairly clearly stated in the books, and is in keeping with the spirit of Tolkien in general. Hobbits live longer than Men, 100 not being an uncommon age; also, Bilbo lived to 111 and was only just beginning to attract suspicions about his youthful appearance. This, combined with the statement that 33 is the "coming of age" for Hobbits, makes it seem fairly obvious to me that human 18 = Hobbit 33. This of course is Elijah's age, the *only* teenager cast as a hobbit. And since the ring halts aging (though it does, over time, transform you into a hideous frog being) it's not unreasonable to think that Frodo would look 18 at the time of the events in the book.
-
It is a hellova lot better than 5 days of 20/20 or Friends.
BTW. I can't wait for these movies!!! -
Regarding earlier comments about the "look" of the various races: I re-read LOTR last weekend, and I kept an eye out for physical descriptions. Elves may be taller than most of us think, since Elrond is described as being taller than Gandalf. Also, I think the orcs are significantly smaller than elves. In the first battle in Moria, an orc chieftain is described as being "huge...almost man-sized." So most ordinary orcs must be smaller - probably under 5 feet. Also, although orcs are commonly depicted in fantasy art as being green-skinned, I saw no such references in the books. Tolkein tends to describe them as "swart," although at least one orc is described as being black-skinned. Not that any of this is of great consequence. I trust PJ to make everything look good and keep to the spirit rather than the letter of the source material.
-
I'll keep this brief: for the past few months I've been slogging through the Great Hobbit Age Debate(you know, 33 is 18 is 50 minus the square root of a Ring and so forth), and fellow Tolkienites - it's a moot point. Hobbits are not human, and we have no reason to assume that their aging process is the same as ours. That's it. Perhaps a middle-aged hobbit looks like a twentysomething? perhaps they're baby-faced until they die? Perhaps they have a growth-spurt around the age of 10, or 20, or 55? We have no way of knowing because we are only familiar with the human ageing process. So we'll see what we can delve from J.R.R's descriptions, and we'll leave the rest to stout old Peter. Namarie.
-
Ok - so i havent read all the talkbacks recently - this may have been suggested BUT..
Since Arwen is in the first book (well Rivendell features heavily) and Eowynn isnt and arent the books being separated up anyhow?
Action sequences always pass faster than talky bits and Arwen will prolly talk way more than Eowynn as thier parts are so different obviousnly making Arwen into a heftier part on paper. I agree with the gy who said - ages ago - that they COULDNT be merged without changing the whole book - surely they woulndt do that.
Ok, so Ioan Gruffudd never got approached - he wouldabeen good but we dont all get our pick i guess.
Does anyone know anything about getting extra parts on this film?? anyone?? please??
heres hoping...
ps Does no one else imagine Legolas as *the* stunningly goodlooking, youthful blond guy that i think of him as? In my mind he would be the sexiest guy in this thing as he is elven and the rest seem to be a bit hairy or old or regal to be sexy (bar Borromir)
well, ramblings done with, no one will likely read this anyway... ho hum -
Make-up hides so much, just hope wee don't get a morning after film.
David Bowie - Elrond
Michelle Pfeiffer -Galadriel -
"...They would be small, only children to your eyes, unshod but clad in gray." The Two Towers Chapter 2 Riders of Rohan p44 in my copy.Aren't children younger than the teen/twentysomething question just relax and ready to send all the hate mail you can if they f*** it up.
-
I find it interesting to read so many differing views on so many different subjects. But I am dismayed by the lack of clear vision with regards to the work of J.R.R. Tolkien. Please, read and re-read TLOTR before you post. Otherwise, it becomes too painful.
By the way, New Line could finance this whole project seven-fold by enlisting the tobbacco industry as sponsors. Also, has anyone else heard the rumour that Sauron will be played by O.J.? Samuel Jackson will play the Witch King of Angmar and Mike Tyson, of all people, will play Grishnakh. These are great casting choices by New Line since LOTR pushes a Teutonic Overlord theme. You know, it's the white man's burden. Zeig Heil!!! -
Julian Sands would be ideal as Legolas EXCEPT he has blond hair. Legolas had black hair despite wha all you Dungeons and Dragons freaks think. He was Sindarin? and they were dark of hair.
I have come to terms that Wood is ok for Frodo as well as Astin but only if they have accents. Besides that I only am afraid of their acting ability.
Liv Tyler must die and "Stu" Townsend is THEE single worst piece of casting that I have ever seen.
Maria Bonnevie for Galadriel.
Rachel Colover for Arwen.
Daniel Day Lewis for Aragorn.
Adrian Paul for Faramir.
Cate Blanchett for Eowyn.
Ciao! -
Does anyone think that the soundtrack is an important element in the movie? I think it REALLY is!! Has anyone heard who may be doing the music? I think James Horner might do a good job, but it would probably ending up sounding too much like a Braveheart-Titanic clone. I heard that some Scottish band is doing the score; I hope not, unless they have bagpipes and flutes and an orchestra back-up. And I think that the amazing Sarah Brightman should sing during the part when Frodo is approaching Galadriel in the boat and she is singing, in the first part.
And whoever that loser was earlier in these posts who said that LOTR is nothing more than "a mere fantasy," go to heck!! There is NOTHING MERE ABOUT THIS WORK OF ART!!! Thats like saying Bach and Beethoven are "mere musicians who threw a few notes together and made a symphony." Anyway. . .
till next sign,
Me -
What was that about Samuel Jackson for the Witch-King and O.J. for Sauron??? You NEVER SEE the witch-king (explained at least partly by the fact that he's invisible) and Sauron is supposed to be just the Great Eye - though that could be changed for the movie's sake. Why, why, why i ask you, do you need negroes and orientals and all that in a movie just for the sake of political correctness? Middle-Earth equates - more or less - to Europe. Hobbiton is somewhere in England, and Minas Tirith is supposed to be around Florence. The only non-Caucasians in the movie will be the Haradrim, brought up from the south for the war by Sauron, and possibly the orcs.
Also I think David Bowie would be better for Celeborn.
Also, I agree with whoever posted not far above me who said relax and send hate mail after. Come on, let's maintain a LITTLe positivity! -
if in the chance he should use them.He would prefer the winding country paths,taking in the scene.By chance he might come across a new delightfully quainttown,sometimes he comes across familiar sceneries but from a different and more pleasant point of view...Tell us PJ is this new town you've discovered part of the three that we've speculated on? p.s.alessan,hobbits are humans..
-
There's nothing mere in the LotR as well in other Tolkien's works! It's more than just a fiction - or at least what Tolkien himself thought. C'mon people, don't you know that Middle Earth IS our world? Europe 6000 years ago. And Tolkien truly believed in that. He was writing his book as if he was just a storyteller, not the author. While reading the book, you feel that faith. You believe in the reality of that world, don't you? If not, you wouldn't be arguing so much now of the heroes' age, appearance and so forth. So if they want this movie to be as great as the book, they all - PJ, actors, all the crew involved should totally believe in its reality! ~~~~~~Brian D., others have said it, but i'll repeat - Frodo got the Ring at the age of 33 and stopped getting old! So he probably looked younger than other 3 hobbits~~~~~Dominik Monaghan will rock! :)
-
Ok maybe I I'm not a man who is SUPER into the visuals and astetics (Sp ?) of films, and perhaps I'm being influenced by the cartoon version (as well as a little alcohol) but the actor looks more like Pippen to me.
I always picture , to go along with the cartoon version, Merry as a shorter, fat Hobbit. I also thought that Pippen was a little taller than the rest.
The actor pictured has a long, drawn face. Probably has very little fat on 'em.
Am I a fool, or does he not look like the animated Pippen? Please Mr. Jackson, reconsider. -
The casting is GREAT!
I'm amazed by all the picks and happy as hell. GREAT JOB Peter!!
Now to my worries...
I hate to see this film becoming another Starwars saga. I don't say I dislike George's job on those, they are great!! But LOTR is something totally different.
This is NO film for our younger audience!
I am hopeful though, since you, Peter, has done some really nasty movies back in the good ol'days. :- -
Peter Gabriel should do the soundtrack and play Ghan buri Ghan as well. Also, the idea of elves having pointy ears is ridiculous in the extreme. They might as well be fairies with dragonfly wings. And speaking of which, what's this talk of Sam and Frodo having a " relationship" ( wink, wink, nod, nod)? If anything it's Grima and Saruman or Gandalf and the Balrog. Sheesh, might as well get RuPaul to play Galadriel!!!
-
Sep 03, 1999 8:33:02 AM CDT
If I don't find out the remaining two members of the mystery tri
by r_dimitri22
-
I don't think we need to worry about Peter Jackson making the LOTR into a children's film. Anyone who has read it knows that it is an adult fantasy, though adult in the sense that it is geared toward more mature folks, not an x-rated. But at the same time I the story and characters shouldn't keep younger viewers out. The only aspect that might give the film an R rating rather than a PG are the battle scenes. Depending on how graphic Jackson chooses to be, will determine what the rating will be. I'm guessing that New Line will want to go for a PG-13 rating that will allow the greatest number of viewers. But I'm also thinking that in films like LOTR, where there is a definite moral compass, the MPAA may find that even though there is graphic violence there is a mitigating reason for the violence within the context of the story, and allow it to retain a more family oriented rating. I think that we can all agree that for the most part, the book is squeaky clean. No foul language, no anti-heroes, no nebulous grey areas about good and evil and no sex. Other than the battles themselves or the Balrog scene there is nothing in the book that I would find objectionable for a child under twelve seeing, so long as they had the ability to understand the story. Indeed I would suggest that there are some fairytales that are just as scary and maybe moreso than LOTR. But in the end it should be the parent who decides if the film is appropriate for their child.
-
frodo: gary coleman; aragorn: jimmy "superfly" snuka; merry: solea moon frye; pippin: the corpse of herve villechaize; gandalf: grandpa "Al" munster; saruman: bea arthur; balrog: morton downey junior. I'll get back to you with the rest after some sleep.
-
1) Bach did not write symphonies since he didn't know what a symphony was. 2) I agree with Foolio in regards to the longish face of Merry, but I think the shrinking process will allow for a rounder face for all the hobbits, since it is explicitly stated in The Hobbit and tLotR that the hobbits' faces were round (and chubby).
-
Oh my god, a Stockport lad is going to star in a Hollywood film. Our most famous sons before this was Dave Lee Travis and Mike Yarwood. Christ, there's hope for me yet. Who would have thought the star of Hetty Wainthrop Investigates would star in Lord of the Rings - utterly cool dudes, utterly cool.
-
Is dominic monaghan from Stockport? this is great news, I want to see more Northeners in L ofthe R. Now all we need is a scouse Gimli and perhaps someone from wigan could be cast as Legolas, do any of my fellow Britons out there agree? Robbie Fowler for Elrond!
-
To my knowledge all adaptations thus far have left this charachter out, FOR A GOOD REASON! He is so annoying! I'm currently rereading the books and I have to say all the tom bombadil chapters are so bloody annoying I nearly skipped them.
now i realise that he is supposed to represent a time before the 3rd age and It was a good idea but the constant poetry and Irritating garden gnome joviality rob the idea of any integrity (to paraphrase SFX megazine) . so please please please lets leave him out of this one too, like hes isnt an integral part of the plot or anything. -
I agree with Eliminator. I find Bombadil extremely annoying. Maybe he would have fit in well in The Hobbit, which is more whimsical, but he seems totally out of place in LOTR. The only good thing about Tom Bombadil is that he was great parodo material for Tim Benzedrine in Harvard Lampoon's Bored of the Rings. The only parts of LOTR that I like less than Bombadil's chapter are the scenes where Sam strokes Frodo's hand and basically slobbers all over him. At least there was no tongueing.
-
You people are nuts all over again. Altough Bombadil seems out of place with his goofy capering and singing, he provides for a subtle power to be introduced into the story. The most obvious example of this is the blade Merry picks up in the barrow. It was made by Men of Westernesse to fight the Witch King of Angmar and ultimately is the weapon that brings him down ( I believe that's when Merry starts strutting his stuff around the fallen Nazgul singing "Yeah baby, you were a witch, now you're my BITCH..."). If it wasn't for Tom and Hashberry, none of that would have happened.
-
This is my first posting : ) Only writing this trying to end the debate on how old the hobbits were
when they left the shire. They left in 3018.
Frodo born in 2968 was 50
Sam born 2983 was 35
Pippin born 2990 was 28
Merry born 2982 was 36
I -
You are correct about the ages of the Hobbits when the left the Shire. I had erroneously said that Sam was 38. Robert Foster's book, A Complete Guide To Middle-Earth has Sam's birth in 2980, but the correct date is 2983. That means if Frodo has not changed since receiving the Ring, that he, Merry and Sam appear to be almost the same age. Pippin is still the youngster of the group. I know there is a debate about how old a Hobbit looks at 33, but can we assume that if Pippin looks very young at 28, that the other Hobbits won't look that much older? After all how much change in appearance could there be in five years? I know that some of you want Frodo to look older than the other Hobbits, but I think that Gandalf's offhand remark that Frodo looked the same as ever (after 17 years), wasn't just a flattering statement, but another proof of the true identity of the Ring. BTW, for those who argued that it depended on how much the Ring was used, the book says (or Gandalf says), that actually using the Ring (putting it on) causes the person to fade until they become like the wraiths. I can't help that many of us had a mental image of Frodo looking older. Even I felt that way for many years until I started to really investigate the matter. I've had to reivse my opinion reluctantly to match what Tolkien writes. I guess the reason that I always pictured Frodo as looking older is because he acts older. Well, of course he does, because in reality, no matter how young he may look, he IS older. When I first started reading the LOTR there weren't even any illustrations to go by. Not that illustrations are always accurate. There have been more than a few criticisms of various pictures for one reason or another but that's a different debate.
-
Hey, since Jeffery Combs is out of the running for Grima Wormtongue, I was wondering: why not cast Charles Brosnon! I mean come on. He is old and senile and he has that weasle/stupid renegade attitude down. Think of the possiblities!!!!! :)
-
Keep the faith brother. That was as close as anybody has come to a complete argument. For those who still think Tom is silly, read the small passage where he wakes the hobbits from their barrow- sleep.
-
Excuse me, but I don't know where you come from, but out here in the REAL WORLD there are people of "colour" as you put it. Many people of color. And that's not "politically correct" or whatever, that's just really how it is. In the US, diversity is something that is part of everday life. Even in Europe there are people of ethnic descent other than just caucasian. Negroes and orinentals? What, are you stuck in the 1950s or something? Well, wake up and realize that times have changed and your comments sound a bit bigoted. I don't know if PJ will represent people of color in his movies or not. Certainly in the LOTR novels (which btw I love), they don't seem to exist. But that's not the issue here. I just think some people need to be educated. I think it would be cool to see a few black or Asian actors thrown into the mix, not to be "politically correct" but just to represent reality and have the movies appeal to all people as the books seem to be able to do. But bottom line, I think that basically the casting seems to be going pretty well and that the movies will be awesome. All I'm saying is, come on, at least Star Wars had Lando Calrissian.
-
who cares what color hair a charactor has! P.S. Tolken Scholar takes 47 points of damage from fireball.
-
First of all I don't want to accuse anyone of being a racist. That's a such a strong word. And I agree with MorGoth, Tolkien was not a racist and is definitely just a product of his times. All in all, LOTR is a outstanding piece of literature and that transceneds all prejudiced undertones one may find in the book if they look hard enough. Bottom line, the script should stay true to the book and then the movie will reflect its greatness.**** And when are we going to find out who is cast for Legolas!!!! I need to know . . .
-
Excellent, Dominic Monaghan will do an excellent job as Merry, lets hope the casting for Pippin is as good.
-
And cut all this racial diversity crap. Basically Tolkien was a product of his times, when concepts such as eugenics (better the race through selective breeding) had wide currency. Tolkien wrote of "High Men", "Middle Men" etc, in much the same way as the Nazis reffered to "Aryans" and the lesser peoples such as jews and "Half Men", the slavs who lived south-east of Austria. Tolkien most definitely did not subscribe to our modern dogma that all people are equal, he believed some men were superior than others (as indicated by such things as height, lifespan, paleness of the skin, etc), depending on lesser or greater amounts of Elven blood. So, by our modern standards Tolien certainly was racist, jsut as he was sexist (did he not refer to Men (aka homo sapiens) instead of Humans etc, as the dykes would suggest we should?) However, I couldn't care less, because if you read the works of other cultures-and I consider the England of 50 years ago another culture as much as China, you must put aside your own prejudices and accept, not judging but realising that people are products of their environments. So, all you pc wankers, if you cannot deal with Tolkien's visions of racial purity, sexism, etc, and feel that the movie should depart from these core aspects of Tolien's world, go have a fucking cry and watch Teletubbies with your kids. Over and out.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- G.I. JOE: RETALIATION Delayed Nine Months...Thanks To A Force More Sinister Than Cobra!! -- 214 total posts 213 posts
- THE DARK KNIGHT RISES TV Spot Has New Footage And Dialogue! UPDATED To Add Second Spot! -- 160 total posts 160 posts
- Who Is The Voice Of Batman In WB's Animated Two Part THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS? -- 154 total posts 154 posts
- Cats Beware!! An ALF Movie May Soon Come Our Way... -- 148 total posts 147 posts
- UPDATED!!! A Six-Pack Of New Character Posters For THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Forecast A Lot Of Gotham Rain And Snow!! -- 269 total posts 80 posts
- Gary Oldman Joins The ROBOCOP Remake! -- 76 total posts 76 posts
- AICN COMICS REVIEWS: INCREDIBLE HULK! DANGER CLUB! CLiNT 2.1! JAMES BOND! BATMAN INC.! AND MORE!!! -- 67 total posts 67 posts
- Baz's THE GREAT GATSBY explodes with one helluva dazzling trailer! -- 187 total posts 63 posts
- The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day… the horror… the horror… -- 49 total posts 49 posts
- Zach Galifianakis Is Ignatius J. Reilly? -- 84 total posts 49 posts