Likewise, it dont bother me either but it has really triggered the racists.

The dwarves beard thing is more fan service than Tolkien.
Gimley mentions it in Lord of the Rings as more tongue and cheek then it being literal.
Some have taken this to be another reason to attacknthe show.

The Peter Jackson trilogy had many omissions from the books but many accepted it as part of storytelling on the big stage.

The black elf and dwarf has really hit a nerve with a particular group of people.

visually.. it looks cheap af, that shot of the elves fighting orcs looks awful

the most offensive thing is the introduction of characters theyve invented

the she elf that the studio forced into the hobbit to have a dwarf lovestory was crap

I just don't get how the timeline is going to work, if I remember correctly the timeline covers like 2000 years?

looks ok 2me

tho not a fanboy of the hole thingy

who is the female at b-gnning? is that a dwarf-woman?

she is cute

comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 6 hours, 30 minutes ago
I just don't get how the timeline is going to work, if I remember correctly the timeline covers like 2000 years?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazon have agreed to condense the timeline for filming purposes.
Peter Jackson did exactly the same for LOTR so it shouldnt be a problem.

comment by 4zA - its into the shame and into the guilt and into the fooking fray (U22472)
posted 5 hours, 12 minutes ago
who is the female at b-gnning? is that a dwarf-woman?

she is cute
----------------------------------------------------------------------
She's a hobbit

Nothing wrong with a bit of creative licence, Gimley.

Long as Sore Ron, Bill Bow, Fro Dough and Grand Alf are okay with it.

comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 15 hours, 34 minutes ago
the she elf that the studio forced into the hobbit to have a dwarf lovestory was crap
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was pretty clear it was going to be a shower of schidt the moment they announced they were turning The Hobbit into a trilogy.

Well that and all the production issues del Toro bailing and a script being written while filming, on asked for time but wasn't allowed it

Pj

comment by #If Only, Mithrandir (U22733)
posted 1 day, 14 hours ago
Likewise, it dont bother me either but it has really triggered the racists.

The dwarves beard thing is more fan service than Tolkien.
Gimley mentions it in Lord of the Rings as more tongue and cheek then it being literal.
Some have taken this to be another reason to attacknthe show.

The Peter Jackson trilogy had many omissions from the books but many accepted it as part of storytelling on the big stage.

The black elf and dwarf has really hit a nerve with a particular group of people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The beard thing is in the books to be fair with Tolkien describing certain Dwarven races like it.

It makes sense to omit it for a TV show so I don't really get the uproar, but I can also understand why the hardcore Tolkien nerds are annoyed, and would be worried other things will also be changed.

I do find it amusing that we can tolerate on screen the unique features of elves, orcs, goblins, trolls, giant walking trees, hobbits..

But not one of the unique features of the dwarves is discarded. I'm no fanboy, but I can see why it annoys some people.

There are seven kindreds of the Dwarves,
Durin's Folk
Firebeards
Broadbeams
Ironfists
Stiffbeards
Blacklocks
Stonefoots
All having unique features as well.

I think too much is being made of this and is just an excuse to permit those who wish to promote their wrong views

Peter Jackson changed things in his trilogy and those movies are excellent. I suspect people are just trying to find something to complain about. Let's see how it's all executed because there are plenty of movies/shows that deviate from their source material but turn out to be amazing.

Bu nevessity movies n tv often must change things from the books as is a different medium that is limited by logistics of money/time/talent/technical that books rnot

yeah pj changed things due to certain characters only appearing for abit before not being seen again ala glorfindel,, so they gave his part to arwen, also the dunedain came to help at helms deep not the elves

see stuff got swapped about but i dont recall him making up a completely new character and making a new character(hobbit aside that was a studio choice forced in)

main character*

just hope the writing it up to scratch, the cinematography looks bad so far, the shot of the elves fighting orcs looks worse than the intro to lotr

The opening of the first film was magical. It was everything a Tolkien enthusiast might have hoped for.

The first appearance of the Nazgûl, and the Fellowship of the Ring on the whole were very much in keeping with the books. The main characters of Frodo, Gandalf and Gollum were brilliantly cast and characterised. But it's almost as if they didn't devote enough thought to the others.

Boromir was ok. Aragorn not really rugged enough and just a bit too handsome. But those are the better ones.

Never in my mind's eye did Legolas nor any other elf look like a rettarded albino. Dwarves do have their comical side, but the portrayal of Gimli was Jar Jar Binks levels of unfunny. Sam's infatuation for Frodo was far more homoerotic than anything I recall when reading the books.

And then a number of other things made the overall experience a bit too grating. I understand why in film you'd want to make the action scenes more central, but they were still far too predominant for my liking, and the flying, sweeping camera shots and a lot of the camera shots in general are far too fast, barely giving time to properly take in what hundreds of people have gone to great pain to create.

The experience of watching the films, in my opinion, absolutely pales in comparison to reading the books. Slowly building and recreating the whole fantasy world and its adventures in your own mind provides a far deeper level of enjoyment.

I'll probably give this new series a chance if it's available on whichever platform I'm on at the time, but I'm definitely not going to stick with it if it turns out to be a whole load of clichéd crap. I'll always have the Silmarillion to go back to.

i like how theyve called this young galadriel, shes 5000 years old

comment by it'sonlyagame - Newcastle till I’m dismembered (U6426)
posted 14 minutes ago
The opening of the first film was magical. It was everything a Tolkien enthusiast might have hoped for.

The first appearance of the Nazgûl, and the Fellowship of the Ring on the whole were very much in keeping with the books. The main characters of Frodo, Gandalf and Gollum were brilliantly cast and characterised. But it's almost as if they didn't devote enough thought to the others.

Boromir was ok. Aragorn not really rugged enough and just a bit too handsome. But those are the better ones.

Never in my mind's eye did Legolas nor any other elf look like a rettarded albino. Dwarves do have their comical side, but the portrayal of Gimli was Jar Jar Binks levels of unfunny. Sam's infatuation for Frodo was far more homoerotic than anything I recall when reading the books.

And then a number of other things made the overall experience a bit too grating. I understand why in film you'd want to make the action scenes more central, but they were still far too predominant for my liking, and the flying, sweeping camera shots and a lot of the camera shots in general are far too fast, barely giving time to properly take in what hundreds of people have gone to great pain to create.

The experience of watching the films, in my opinion, absolutely pales in comparison to reading the books. Slowly building and recreating the whole fantasy world and its adventures in your own mind provides a far deeper level of enjoyment.

I'll probably give this new series a chance if it's available on whichever platform I'm on at the time, but I'm definitely not going to stick with it if it turns out to be a whole load of clichéd crap. I'll always have the Silmarillion to go back to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree with the books vs films comparison. I think it depends on the material and the order in which you watch/read it.

For example, I read the Harry Potter books before I watched any of the movies and I certainly found a greater appreciation and enjoyment from the books than I did the films.

I watched Peter Jacksons trilogy first and then read the fellowship and for me, that book doesn't touch what the movie done. The music, the action, the chemistry between the cast, the dialogue in live action.

Another example would be comics. I've read several adaptations of different characters and whilst they are all great reads, they don't give me as much enjoyment as say, Nolans Dark Knight Trilogy.

comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 23 minutes ago
i like how theyve called this young galadriel, shes 5000 years old
----------------------------------------------------------------------
She looks 18

honestly could have just used cate blanchett