PJ's dwarves vs. Tolkien's Elves

John Howe said that "Peter Jackson will do for dwarves what Tolkien did for elves," with PJ saying that they basically used 10% of canon, 60% actor based, and 30% Weta (and yes I too realized that's over 100%). Personally I don't think PJ has even scratched the surface, simply because everything they come up with is surface level without much history behind it. They're strictly concerned with looks and gimmicks, even on Weta's end.

With that said, I think that's a reason why so much of the movies are dwarf oriented and stray so far from the original story. PJ and Co. are so preoccupied creating their own Tolkien style world that they're forgetting what they're doing it through. It's a moment where the creative process is taking over the project.

Tinuviel wrote: ... they basically used 10% of canon, 60% actor based, and 30% Weta (and yes I too realized that's over 100%)...

Um...yes it adds up correctly.    I kinda wish it didn't.

halfwise wrote:

Tinuviel wrote: ... they basically used 10% of canon, 60% actor based, and 30% Weta (and yes I too realized that's over 100%)...  

Um...yes it adds up correctly.     I kinda wish it didn't.

   sorry it's been a long day

Tinuviel wrote:... with PJ saying that they basically used 10% of canon, 60% actor based, and 30% Weta

If we're going to assign blame, 60% seems like a lot of blame to put on the actors, and 30% seems like letting WETA off easy for all the wispy beards, ax heads, and fat suits.  

And by the way, how did the writers of the lame script get off totally free? There's plenty of blame for everybody.  

David H wrote: There's plenty of blame for everybody.  

  

if I had billions of quid to spend on re-making The Hobbit and if I had access to the same Actors, design team etc, I wonder what I would keep. Basically I would keep the services of Howe and Lee, Sir Ian, Freeman, and the actor who plays Balin. I would keep a few of the costumes, namely the understated raggedy travel ones with Dwarvenesque designs, Cumberbums voice, and thats IT. All the rest, the dialogue, Weta (who are disappointing me these days) would be binned. I would film in Europe, the dialogue would be written by a true Tolkien scholar not some wannabe, the special effects would be severely curtailed and the emphasis physical sets and a mix with models and cgi. Dwarves would have coloured hoods and look like Dwarves and be largely interchangeable apart from maybe 5 of them. It would be chock full of talking animals and enough full-on Faerie to make your head spin with intoxication. and Bilbo would be important.

If I had billions of quid to spend on re-making The Hobbit I might re-make Ladyhawke.

Does that mean you liked Ladyhawke or not?

(I have fond memories of it)

good idea. I liked the idea of Ladyhawk more than the actuality. It feels so so off in parts, really laboured and stilted wading through mud, cant really put my finger on it. I hate Broderick and his irritating antics, but I liked the two main characters, at least to look at. But I find it almost impossible to watch, but I like it.   

I agree that Ladyhawke is a very mixed bag of mixed stuff with lots of mixes.

The over-done, obvious elements are unpleasant, to say the least. And although I am grateful that it is about enchantments in an age of sword-fighting and such (you know, fantasy elements) I can't really enjoy it. The bad scoring (hey it's bad ok) and somewhat funky costuming is rather grating.

I like parts of, and the general stories/ideas of, both Ladyhawke and Legend [generally as I see it, in Legend a mortal 'intrudes' in Faery, with consequences, and the matter of innocence is raised]...

... but there are parts of both that I think need revision; or that is, I would remake them.

I think pure editing, even with Petty's powerful hand, could only do so much. And yes I agree the musical score to Ladyhawke has got to go -- is that possible as an 'edit' even, with the technology [and techno-wizards] of today?

A better score would have helped. If the movie had looked cheesier I could have accepted electric guitars as background music for the middle ages, but it had too much going for it. I would have dumped Broderick but kept nearly all the other leads. It was oddly compelling, just needed some tweaks to make it into a classic.

#norced

Going back to the first post, I don't understand what John Howe is talking about here.
Tolkien re-shaped the idea of elves in fiction and film into something far more serious, and more beautiful than the common traditional portrayal of them as brownie-like creatures, no larger than a rat (or something, fairies, basically).

Tolkien already set up dwarves in his stories as being a bit different, a bit more serious, than some other portrayals.

How on earth could Jackson do as much for dwarves, as Tolkien had for elves (and dwarves, while were at it).
It just doesn't make sense. It's like if I someone created a new program for a computer and then said that he was doing as much for computers as the creators of computers did.

He has turned them into short rather good looking humans. That or cartoon characters. Maybe that's what he was refering to.  

 

Elthir wrote:I like parts of, and the general stories/ideas of, both Ladyhawke and Legend [generally as I see it, in Legend a mortal 'intrudes' in Faery, with consequences, and the matter of innocence is raised]...

... but there are parts of both that I think need revision; or that is, I would remake them.

I think pure editing, even with Petty's powerful hand, could only do so much. And yes I agree the musical score to Ladyhawke has got to go -- is that possible as an 'edit' even, with the technology [and techno-wizards] of today?

I loved Legend. Its the most beautiful Faery film I have ever seen. I wouldnt remake it, even Tom Cruise was good in it , well he didnt feel like Tom Cruise which is a plus.

Well 'remake it' in the sense of altering some things... some of the intended humour for instance, and some of the special effects.

Scott put Lili's song back in, which was an improvement for me for instance, and he changed the ending to the one he wanted originally [as far as I know, at least for American audiences the ending was later revised], which I much prefer as well.

Also I think the story could use an edit or revision now and again, like [imo] reveal the explanation from Darkness to Blix [at the start] in a more layered manner.

The general look is still very nice in my opinion, but for example I think some of the makeup on Blix or Meg could be more realistic nowadays.

Ridley Scott gets my vote for Best Unicorns running about in motes of Thistledown scene.   

I agree Mrs Figg! Somma those motes...

 lovely

Hey I made a picture in a thread! Elthir is learning! But can I make a moving one appear...

 

Norc taught me how to do that, but I already forgot.

Fom Norc I learned how to better 'norc' a thread... if that means 'hijack' or something similar that is.

And if so, case in point   

Elthir. Is. Learning.

although a good behorsing can unlearn me, but still

She taught us all how to Norc a thread!   

Hmm, are you norcing my already norced thread by posting about Norc?

Nothing wrong with it, just wondering.

But back to topic: Legend the movie...