Ralph Bakshi version

I seem to recall he had some issues with the RotK. I wonder why he returned for AUJ. He looks so very old and weary.

I really he hope he gets at least one more role in something, even if its a small scene- just so that is not the last ever thing he does on screen. He deserves so much better than that.

Rhaddy- yeah he had quite a few problems with the films reading between the lines a bit, but being the long serving professional he is, and a gentlemen, he is fairly tactful and diplomatic.

Didn't also Orlando Bloom say at the fan event that Armatige didn't want him in the movie.

That should count for something in as far as Armatiges purist credentials, I guess.

Or maybe he just doesn't like him

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I really he hope he gets at least one more role in something, even if its a small scene- just so that is not the last ever thing he does on screen. He deserves so much better than that.

Rhaddy- yeah he had quite a few problems with the films reading between the lines a bit, but being the long serving professional he is, and a gentlemen, he is fairly tactful and diplomatic.

Yeah, he's pretty amazing. He's 91 years old

Bluebottle wrote:Didn't also Orlando Bloom say at the fan event that Armatige didn't want him in the movie.

That should count for something in as far as Armatiges purist credentials, I guess.

I got the impression that was a joke. Armitage hasn't really made any "purist" comments beyond just claiming to be one.

It's kinda funny Armitage seems to have the most interest in Tolkien's story out of all the cast and crew, when he is totally at odds with the Thorin Tolkien envisioned (IMO at least), I wonder how Jackson went about explaining the story to him 'Right Richard this scene is a flashback to Thrain's disappearance' 'I know and you are pronouncing the name wrong...'.

It's all relative, Phillpa Boyens the foremost 'expert' has stated many times LOTR is her favourite book, yet she dosen't seem very interested or familiar with Tolkien's wider mythos...

malickfan wrote:It's kinda funny Armitage seems to have the most interest in Tolkien's story out of all the cast and crew, when he is totally at odds with the Thorin Tolkien envisioned (IMO at least)...

No, definitely not just your opinion. Even the most ardent PJ fans can't argue that, though they'll probably argue that the movie version is better... 

Funnily enough there was a poll on this on TORn, guess who voted for Tolkien's Thorin...:

http://newboards.theonering.net/forum/gforum/perl/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_threaded;post=673236;sb=post_time;so=DESC;guest=98308815

Ugh! 46-8?!

(And I'm the 8th! )

Well, as you say he hasn't made many comments to back him calling himself a purist up. Still, that would be one I guess.  

I did get the impression from Bloom that while it might have been said in good humour, it certainly did happen and that certainly was his opinion.

That's an interesting poll, but I notice that it's not asking which is better, it's asking which is more likable. And while I didn't find Armitage's Thorin to be the very likable, I can see how some people would find book!Thorin to be less likable for one reason or another.

I vote for book version in both cases.

Armitage seems to think just glowering (all the time) and the odd sarcastic comment about Bilbo is enough to portray Thorin. Its just not good enough and rings hollow. It lacks any depth or subtlety. ok Thorin was a bit of a booby but he had a Whole range of conflicting characteristics all going on at once, he was the most complex of the Dwarves in TH. Armitage plays his straight up broody hero without the flashes of vanity, pomposity and fudging. Its boring to watch.

I gotta say, book Thorin is rather inconsistent. He's presented as a very important dwarf, but largely comes off as a pompous fuddy-duddy. Then at the end he suddenly becomes so heroic that at his shout even elves come running to his side in the midst of battle. I could see the need to bend his character more towards the heroic just to satisfy that moment, though it kinda ruins parts of the rest of the book.

btw Malick, why on TORN do you have the byline "can't post" ?

I think that was kind of Tolkiens point Halfwise.

He was supposed to be this important dwarf through heritage but always struggled to live up to it. Trying too hard to live up to his role also gave him some rather dislikeable characteristics. And just before the end of the book he is ready to start a war against his friendliest neighbours mainly because of his consumation by greed for Smaugs treasure.

In the Battle of Five Armies Tolkien gives him his redemption by showing that he truley can live up to the promise of his role as king when it comes down to it.

So I don't see his character as inconsistent. I see it as a character the author, through the circumstances he encounters, gives growth and a journey to redemptions by overwinning his bad qualities which at a time seemed insurmountable.

Yeah, when the line in the book describes him as a "very important dwarf" it's kind of a sly, ironic statement, I think, meant to reflect what the character thinks of himself. Though not entirely untrue, Thorin played it up to rather grandiose levels and had a haughty air about himself. He was also, of course, fiercely proud.

As far as his being some kind of incompetent boob (which is not to say anyone here has said so, but it seems to be a general conception), Thorin was the only one of the dwarves with the presence of mind to no walk blindly into the troll clearing. He was also the only one to fight them.

That is a good point, everyone complained about the Dwarves being comedic and underdeveloped in the film, but it was the same in the book, I guess really I sympathised with Thorin more in the book because you weren't basically ordered to-the film slaps you round the face with his story, tries so hard to make him likable it makes me hate him.

Hmm...not sure why that message came up on TORn, I sometimes have problems with my browser, who knows maybe they have clocked on to my crabbit here and are considering banning me? (Not that I'd really care I hardly post anymore). 

Radaghast wrote:
As far as his being some kind of incompetent boob (which is not to say anyone here has said so, but it seems to be a general conception), Thorin was the only one of the dwarves with the presence of mind to no walk blindly into the troll clearing. He was also the only one to fight them.

Exactly. And it's probably part of why he came over so self important as well. Thorin had been to war, he knew how to handle himself and he knew that neither the journey or it's goal would be easy to achieve. But those qualities did certainly not make him heroic, his only heroic moment in the book comes when he and the other dwarfs rush from the Lonely Mountain in the Bo5A. And it only comes after the journey his character has been through in the book.

Thorin in my imagination is Colonel Mannering (Dads Army) and King Leonidas's love child.

I agree with Blue about Thorin, I dont mind "book" Thorin at all, To me he acts "all mouth & no trousers" but as Blue said, he redeems himself at the end. I dont like the version of Thorin that armitage portrays in the film. Hes to young in face to be so fooking moody. He shows little in the brains department & I dont get the feeling from he & the Dwarves as a whole,that he's as bout as high in the line of rule as you can be. To me, he wears a "ttut, no one listens to me" face & seems to be at the back, sulkily following behind ?

I could imagine Armitage playing one of the younger Dwarves but not the leader, no cancel that, he's not really a Dwarf.

Bluebottle wrote:And it's probably part of why he came over so self important as well. Thorin had been to war, he knew how to handle himself and he knew that neither the journey or it's goal would be easy to achieve. But those qualities did certainly not make him heroic, his only heroic moment in the book comes when he and the other dwarfs rush from the Lonely Mountain in the Bo5A. And it only comes after the journey his character has been through in the book.

Agreed; basically what it comes down to is that all the supporting characters are foils for Bilbo, including Gandalf (which is why, I suspect, Tolkien sent him off to Dol Guldur). They should never, EVER, take center stage as they do in these movies (the Tauriel-Legolas-Kili love triangle? Really? WHO CARES?!). Trying to make the dwarves distinct kind of goes against the idea of focusing on the main character. And to totally leave the perspective of the titular character for entire scenes is a huge no-no. The title of the book is The Hobbit, not The Dwarves, The Wizards, The Elves...and, oh yeah, a Hobbit.

Of course, these are all made-to-order blockbuster movies, so all the rules get thrown out the window, sadly.

Having said all that, it's fair to point out that book Bilbo's perspective is absent for part of the Bo5A. Ironically, it probably wont' be in the movie.

and ironically thats the one scene I would have changed from the book, to have Bilbo conked out for a large part of the battle, wouldnt work well on film I dont think. But as you say its not really about Bilbo any more, may as well let him have a nice sleep he doesnt really figure in the story

Yeah, I think Tolkien didn't want to develop him into a warrior and his getting knocked out is an indication of that. Yeah, he killed some spiders while invisible, but getting involved in a furious melee (invisible or not) would, realistically, not have worked out well for the hobbit.