The Hobbit movie: Dwarves

http://thewertzone.blogspot.com/2011/07/here-come-dwarves.html

Some of these look pretty good. But Kili?! Your thoughts on these dwarves and any others on canon vs. Hobbit movie.

All the dwarves ran together for me in the book, so I really feel bad for the actors in these movies. Will we come close to having enough time to care about any of them?

Kili doesn't look like a dwarf.

I am excited to Richard Armitage playing the role of Thorin. He should be great.

And if you want to see a very nice group composite, including a better view of Thorin, you should click here

Go with the same design of hobbiton and gandalf as lotr only a little age difference on gandalf and it would be fine.

The only thing i have reservations and worries about really other than beorn, gollum, the riddle contest is handled is really smaug the dragon.

Bilbo looks a little too tall for a hobbit but i am sure that will be fixed in the final movie.  Not too sure on the actor chosen but i won't know until i see the film.  I do hate that its being shot on video in 3-D and not on super35 film.  Like the rings films.

Dwarfs or dwarves: both forms are equally correct; generally dwarfs is used when referring to little people (e.g. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs) and dwarves when referring to the mythological creature (Tolkien uses this form in The Hobbit).

In real life it's dwarfs and elfs but in Tolkien's it's dwarves and elves.

Anyway, I'm a big Tolkien fan, and have read everything published by his estate, and I have to say I'm really excited about the movie.  I think Jackson has it under control just like he did Lord of the Rings.

I think the dwarves look great, Fili and Kili not excluded (they have to have someone for girls to put posters of in their rooms!).  I think, being a visual version of the book, the different dwarves will actually stand out better, and be more recognizable as their individual characters rather that just 'one of the dwarves'. 

Sure, there are going to be differences, and they will piss people off (skyjedi).  But when making a movie based on such a rich and detailed book there's only so much justice that can be done without making a seven hour movie that no one wants to sit through.

The important thing is that the people making the movie (Jackson, his team, Weta digital, etc.) really care about the source material.  They're all huge fans of Tolkien, and I think that's key in making a quality representation of his book.

RedFive said:

In real life it's dwarfs and elfs but in Tolkien's it's dwarves and elves.

You're right.  I can't remember the source for this, but Tolkien basicially threw down with "'Dwarfs' looks dope.  I'm a gonna spell it 'dwarves'" once-upon-a-time.

This was before looking dope was actually still bad and before it was good.

It was also before bad was good and bad was just bad.

Hahahaha, I think it was in the preface or intro to Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit, which he wrote.  Not sure exactly though..

Because he wanted to avoid latinisms or frenchisms, aka romance languages and try to reconstruct words found in Germanic tongues.

He was going to use Dwarrows like Grimm but went with Dwarves.

The reason for Elves is plain to see he wanted to distinguish his elves from the small fairies found in late european literature or nursery tale.

I'm so old I still use that dope.

Wait..

I'm gonna be pissed if Bofur doesn't have many lines, because James Nesbitt is fucking awesome.

But... Bombur ain't got no beard.

WHAAAAA?

Those huge muttons more than make up for it.

I understand that some of them look different than what I, or others, may have pictures, but I think it's cool that each of the dwarves has their own style of sorts, so we can tell them apart.

Imrahil said:

Is Thorin a Klingon?

 

Don't really like this, but I'm not surprised.  I'll still see the movie(s), I'm sure.

My housemate said the same thing.  Looks a bit like Gowron.

Yet, I like the look.