Peter Jackson Explains Why the ‘Hobbit’ Movies Are Such a Huge Mess

[Boromir88]

I think the visuals are the last things to complain about, actually.~Nerwen

I should clarify that most of the set designs, bigatures, costume and make-up department looked more real and had a feeling of being in a different world. I think part of it because Jackson didn't use the super high frames per second, relied less on CGI, and had a lot more time for set building/planning in the LOTR films.

I get a creepier feel about Minas Morgul than I do with Dol Guldur. There's a darker feeling around Pippin and Merry being in Fangorn, than the dwarves being lost in Mirkwood.

The biggest settings I didn't feel right about were Rohan and Bree. Rohan, not so much the rocky terrain (I'm pretty sure there's a description that says parts are flat and rolling plains and parts that are broken and rocky...although didn't seem like there was much flatness except around Edoras). But Rohan just wasn't green...like at all. Their flag is a white horse on a green field, and there's no green. Jackson in the EE says he wanted it to reflect "war time" in Rohan, and so wanted a bleaker/dead atmosphere, so no green fields.

And I should say it's the Prancing Pony that was wrong to me, not Bree entirely. The Pony was far too dark and created a feeling of the hobbits being misplaced/away from home. In the books there are other hobbits around and the Pony feels homely enough to lull them off their guard and feeling like they were back in the Green Dragon. Movies they look and feel so misplaced inside the Pony. I would guess the reason is since the Old Forest was cut from the movie, this is really the first "residence" outside the Shire we see the hobbits in and Jackson wanted to create that "not at home anymore" feeling that readers get in the Old Forest chapters.

But by visuals, it's really hard to shake off the image of Sean Bean's strawberry-blonde hair when reading Boromir's parts in the books. As just one example. So, I think, at least in my experience, the images from the movies seep into my brain while I'm reading the books, and it becomes hard not to picture John Rhys-davies' Gimli. (Edit: where actually The Hobbit it's fairly easy to shake off any of the dwarves and images because of how absolutely silly, wrong, or fake everything looks or feels)

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I think much of the hostility to the "different mediums" argument from book fans comes from the way it has often been used as a supposedly irrefutable blanket defence of, well, everything. Also, perhaps, the fact that some of its proponents want to have their cake and eat it- some people who don't think the films should be like the books ("different mediums, guys") will happily bash the books for not being more like the films ("all those boring descriptions"). This was particularly noticeable in "The Hobbit" honeymoon period, when one heard quite a lot about how Jackson had "treated the material with more respect than Tolkien ever did"- because apparently JRRT wrote the book as a children's story by mistake.

There is much merit in what you say.

I also object to the implication that seems to underlie the assertions made by various people in this vein over the years that the way Jackson chose to adapt the novels is the only way the novels could be adapted and are therefore immune to criticism because, "It is an adaptation across different mediums, you ignorant toad! Changes must be made!"

I understand that changes must be made but I do not believe that the changes themselves are beyond criticism, especially if they are ineffective, implausible, distort the original story, or remove artistically effective or essential material in favor of stuffing in ill-conceived or tasteless bloat.

Originally Posted by The Sixth Wizard

Narrative tension must be driven by characters. The book's excitement comes from material constraints - can they muster enough of the Rohirrim and travel to the Pelennor in time? There is less sense of geography in a film, where characters can travel hundreds of kilometres between scenes, without page-turning establishing a feeling of time passing, so we need something else to establish the same narrative roadblocks. That's why we need Denethor refusing aid, Theoden refusing to help, Faramir's rout, and Gondor's military failure all building towards the final triumph. The long list of failures makes final success more vivid - Theoden's initial reluctance ramps up his change of heart and bravery in the battle as well.

I wholly disagree with this. These are ham-fisted solutions to problems of the director's own making. In addition to agreeing with Nerwen's point that this sort of strawman problem-solution scenarios renders the repetition of them tedious, it also strains suspension of disbelief to the breaking point (or past) while more serving the purpose of bloating the film rather than compressing.

I much prefer to see things handled with subtlety and finesse, qualities that Jackson and Friends do not seem to possess.

To break this down a bit further, let us look at the events surrounding Faramir, specifically during The Two Towers.

Originally Posted by The Sixth Wizard

The enjoyment of meeting Faramir in the novel comes from learning about his people and history, and we don't need him to desire the ring to keep us entertained. But it would undermine the dread surrounding the Ring to see him resist it in the film. We've already seen Galadriel, Gandalf and Aragorn bypass the temptation of the Ring at that point - how can we fear its corruption if some guy we just met resists it as well? It gives our heroes another challenge beyond "pit-stop at the Forbidden Pool" for TTT.

In the books, while the unveiling of a bit of the history and lore of Gondor is certainly a high point, Faramir's discovery of what Frodo carried and his reaction to that are a critical part of the scene. Instead of dealing with the scene with any kind of subtlety, Jackson has Faramir do exactly what Boromir tried to do and seized Frodo.

Faramir's actions take Frodo significantly out of the way, and expose him to various extra dangers, the most "serious" of which being a Nazgul.

You want to talk about the dread of something being undermined, how about how that sequence serves to undermine the dread of the Nazgul?

This also breaks suspension of disbelief because Frodo has now been carried out of his way and exposed to extreme danger...just to provide another eye-roll inducing scene of faux-drama. This scene took me completely out of the film when I first saw it...not that there was much of me invested in it by that point I was so irritated by how badly most of the rest of it had been done.

The treatment of Faramir in that sequence was a terrible, terrible way of adapting the scene and there are better ways of doing it. Pretty much anything would have been an improvement. The only way Jackson could have screwed it up worse was if he had Faramir take Frodo right to the threshold of Barad-dur.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I also object to the implication that seems to underlie the assertions made by various people in this vein over the years that the way Jackson chose to adapt the novels is the only way the novels could be adapted and are therefore immune to criticism because, "It is an adaptation across different mediums, you ignorant toad! Changes must be made!"

I understand that changes must be made but I do not believe that the changes themselves are beyond criticism, especially if they are ineffective, implausible, distort the original story, or remove artistically effective or essential material in favor of stuffing in ill-conceived or tasteless bloat..

The argument regarding the trans-mutational necessity of fundamental change when crossing mediums falls fairly flat when people almost universally praise the immortal lines drawn directly from the book that are spoken as dialogue in the movie -- by different characters at times, but the effect is near magical nonetheless in nearly every instance.

So too, there was never much argument against the real need for time compression. I really never heard a good response against or genuine dismay for Tom Bombadil being left out of the movie. I think reasonable people understand that there is a natural break when Bombadil is in the story, and his omission, although perhaps regrettable, was almost necessary.

However, it isn't the necessary time compression, or editing characters out and giving their dialogue to some other character that raises hackles (and I never even knew I had hackles previous to these movies); it is, rather, the superfluous inclusions, the unnecessary addenda and the cringe-inducing extraneous dialogue that causes consternation.

You can't have it both ways. You can't argue for compression by omitting scenes and characters due to time constraints, but then disembogue a flood of extra crap to fill the void, particularly hokey crap that simply doesn't belong in the story.

Aragorn falling off a cliff then Frenching his horse, the whole "Arwen is dying" debacle, the equally inane "Go home Sam", Faramir dragging Frodo and Sam all the way back to Osgiliath only to let them go again -- Jackson eliminated whole parts of chapters from the books simply to add his own asininity.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I wholly disagree with this. These are ham-fisted solutions to problems of the director's own making. In addition to agreeing with Nerwen's point that this sort of strawman problem-solution scenarios renders the repetition of them tedious, it also strains suspension of disbelief to the breaking point (or past) while more serving the purpose of bloating the film rather than compressing.

I do understand the reasoning behind some of the changes- basically, replacing a difficult-to-establish obstacle with a simpler one- but as I said, my issue is that the same substitute problem with the same resolution gets used too often. And yes, the need for the "good guys" to put aside their differences and help each other is a major theme of the book, so it's legitimate in a sense- but I feel that in itself might have been a bit of a trap for the writers.

To illustrate- take that whole business of the Rohirrim aiding Gondor. There's actually two obstacles: one is that of pure logistics, which would indeed be hard to convey dramatically on film (though they do have a go). The other is the more concrete one that the road turns out to have been taken by the enemy, forcing the Rohirrim into an alliance with the Druedain, to whom they're traditionally hostile. That, I believe, could have worked very well- but it does require a fair bit of set-up, and I can imagine the writing team throwing their hands up and saying, "No time for this, let's just have Theoden be all "*^%^$ off, Denethor" and then have a change of heart at the sight of the beacon. After all, it conveys the same moral".

Originally Posted by Kuruhuran

To break this down a bit further, let us look at the events surrounding Faramir, specifically during The Two Towers.



In the books, while the unveiling of a bit of the history and lore of Gondor is certainly a high point, Faramir's discovery of what Frodo carried and his reaction to that are a critical part of the scene. Instead of dealing with the scene with any kind of subtlety, Jackson has Faramir do exactly what Boromir tried to do and seized Frodo.

Faramir's actions take Frodo significantly out of the way, and expose him to various extra dangers, the most "serious" of which being a Nazgul.

You want to talk about the dread of something being undermined, how about how that sequence serves to undermine the dread of the Nazgul?

This also breaks suspension of disbelief because Frodo has now been carried out of his way and exposed to extreme danger...just to provide another eye-roll inducing scene of faux-drama. This scene took me completely out of the film when I first saw it...not that there was much of me invested in it by that point I was so irritated by how badly most of the rest of it had been done.

The treatment of Faramir in that sequence was a terrible, terrible way of adapting the scene and there are better ways of doing it. Pretty much anything would have been an improvement. The only way Jackson could have screwed it up worse was if he had Faramir take Frodo right to the threshold of Barad-dur.

I will add to this that Faramir in the book, though memorable, is actually a relatively minor character- his plot function is basically to act as either a guide or catalyst for the major characters- and I feel the film blows his role out of proportion.

Understand that I do like the LotR films overall, and that for me these issues aren't "dealbreakers". But as I think I've said already, you can see the first signs of what grew into serious problems with "The Hobbit".

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I should clarify that most of the set designs, bigatures, costume and make-up department looked more real and had a feeling of being in a different world. I think part of it because Jackson didn't use the super high frames per second, relied less on CGI, and had a lot more time for set building/planning in the LOTR films.

I get a creepier feel about Minas Morgul than I do with Dol Guldur. There's a darker feeling around Pippin and Merry being in Fangorn, than the dwarves being lost in Mirkwood.

The biggest settings I didn't feel right about were Rohan and Bree. Rohan, not so much the rocky terrain (I'm pretty sure there's a description that says parts are flat and rolling plains and parts that are broken and rocky...although didn't seem like there was much flatness except around Edoras). But Rohan just wasn't green...like at all. Their flag is a white horse on a green field, and there's no green. Jackson in the EE says he wanted it to reflect "war time" in Rohan, and so wanted a bleaker/dead atmosphere, so no green fields.

Isn't that part of the story supposed to be taking place in winter?

And I should say it's the Prancing Pony that was wrong to me, not Bree entirely. The Pony was far too dark and created a feeling of the hobbits being misplaced/away from home. In the books there are other hobbits around and the Pony feels homely enough to lull them off their guard and feeling like they were back in the Green Dragon. Movies they look and feel so misplaced inside the Pony. I would guess the reason is since the Old Forest was cut from the movie, this is really the first "residence" outside the Shire we see the hobbits in and Jackson wanted to create that "not at home anymore" feeling that readers get in the Old Forest chapters.

But by visuals, it's really hard to shake off the image of Sean Bean's strawberry-blonde hair when reading Boromir's parts in the books. As just one example. So, I think, at least in my experience, the images from the movies seep into my brain while I'm reading the books, and it becomes hard not to picture John Rhys-davies' Gimli. (Edit: where actually The Hobbit it's fairly easy to shake off any of the dwarves and images because of how absolutely silly, wrong, or fake everything looks or feels)

I don't picture Rhys-Davies as Gimli, because he's largely playing a different character, and also because I found his performance so teeth-grittingly annoying that I do my best not to remember it. Sean Bean's Boromir is a different matter, but that's perhaps largely because his portrayal did succeed. The other thing is that the book makes a point of Numenoreans all looking alike- which would perhaps be unwise to try and translate to screen.

[Morsul the Dark]

Dialogue swap is hit or miss.

Galadriel tsking Treebeard's line as part of narration works.

Legolas taking(and butchering) Elrond's line explaining who Aragorn is in Rivendell doesn't work.

The elves at Helm's Deep was both annoying and awesome. It's a great movie scene but has nothing else going for it.

Most of the add ins are just odd. Going back(I was 13 when I first watched the films) I feel less attached to the films and more in tune with the books.

Another issue I have with the movie and always have. Is they make Frodo weak. Obviously it needs to seem pressing but The flight from Weathertop to Rivendell seems to be a day tops. And Frodo is barely lucid.

Bombadil could work on screen if they did it as a series as I've mentioned before. More time allows for truer to book adaptation. One issue with the adaptation is let's be honest, in TTT and ROTK Frodo and Sam have relatively uneventful journeys. This is why some roadblocks were thrown in, likeFaramir.

Someone mentioned Denethor, he has too little screen time so he never had a chance to develop. In the books he even shows his sword on his waist. But in the film Denethor has the most immersion breaking camera shot.

"The rule of Gondor is mine!" Cut to wide shot, expect to see guards come in or something to happen just... sits there. Such a terrible shot.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

However, it isn't the necessary time compression, or editing characters out and giving their dialogue to some other character that raises hackles (and I never even knew I had hackles previous to these movies); it is, rather, the superfluous inclusions, the unnecessary addenda and the cringe-inducing extraneous dialogue that causes consternation.

You can't have it both ways. You can't argue for compression by omitting scenes and characters due to time constraints, but then disembogue a flood of extra crap to fill the void, particularly hokey crap that simply doesn't belong in the story.

This. A million times this!

Originally Posted by Nerwen

To illustrate- take that whole business of the Rohirrim aiding Gondor. There's actually two obstacles: one is that of pure logistics, which would indeed be hard to convey dramatically on film (though they do have a go). The other is the more concrete one that the road turns out to have been taken by the enemy, forcing the Rohirrim into an alliance with the Druedain, to whom they're traditionally hostile. That, I believe, could have worked very well- but it does require a fair bit of set-up, and I can imagine the writing team throwing their hands up and saying, "No time for this, let's just have Theoden be all "*^%^$ off, Denethor" and then have a change of heart at the sight of the beacon. After all, it conveys the same moral".

I don't see the need to put this stuff in at all. If I was adapting it to film I would basically skip the whole process of the Rohirrim getting to Gondor. The only thing I would put in is the Rohirrim receiving the news, a brief scene explaining why Merry rides with Eowyn and that is it. The next we see of them would be the glorious arrival at Minas Tirith.

Why do the logistical problems need to be included at all? They aren't interesting in the context of a film and as we saw in the theater, the attempt to replace this with something more "dramatic" was horrid.

I will add to this that Faramir in the book, though memorable, is actually a relatively minor character- his plot function is basically to act as either a guide or catalyst for the major characters- and I feel the film blows his role out of proportion.

A very good point.

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

Another issue I have with the movie and always have. Is they make Frodo weak. Obviously it needs to seem pressing but The flight from Weathertop to Rivendell seems to be a day tops. And Frodo is barely lucid.

Maybe it was just a day. We saw in The Hobbit trilogy that Middle-earth is about the size of a postage stamp...

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I don't see the need to put this stuff in at all. If I was adapting it to film I would basically skip the whole process of the Rohirrim getting to Gondor. The only thing I would put in is the Rohirrim receiving the news, a brief scene explaining why Merry rides with Eowyn and that is it. The next we see of them would be the glorious arrival at Minas Tirith.

Why do the logistical problems need to be included at all? They aren't interesting in the context of a film and as we saw in the theater, the attempt to replace this with something more "dramatic" was horrid.

Well, I'm talking about that in the context of changing the kind of obstacles the characters encounter. And I do believe in this case there needed to be genuine doubt of whether the Rohirrim would show up at the siege in time- I just don't think "Theoden threatens to take his toys and go home" was the best way to create it.

But yes, more broadly speaking, you can question why they had to throw up quite so many "roadblocks" given the films' shorter timeframe.

[Morsul the Dark]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Why do the logistical problems need to be included at all? They aren't interesting in the context of a film and as we saw in the theater, the attempt to replace this with something more "dramatic" was horrid.

Maybe it was just a day. We saw in The Hobbit trilogy that Middle-earth is about the size of a postage stamp...

I'll respond to second bit first. It's true Movie ME Looks tiny.

As for the other. I believe the logistics do play a role in building drama you see this huge army of oliphants and orcs and trolls Gondor is in trouble. Theorem tries to muster a force gets half his desired forces...

[Galin]

Plus, The Hobbit third edition reveals that orc is a Westron word translated by English goblin. It's like Quendi with "Elves" No difference. It's like translating hund with dog :bark:

It's like translating sub-thread with some word in some other language that means sub-thread.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by galin

plus, the hobbit third edition reveals that orc is a westron word translated by english goblin. It's like quendi with "elves" no difference. It's like translating hund with dog :bark:

It's like translating sub-thread with some word in some other language that means sub-thread.

It's happening!

[The Sixth Wizard]

In response to the above about LOTR, I'd say that to me at least, certain narrative changes which fall flat are inevitable in an adaptation of a massive piece of written work. The immensity of the task almost guarantees a few failures, but I am also cynical about Hollywood in general so I am happy with any sort of care taken and quality produced, however hampered. I agree that some of the dramatic roadblocks were cheesy and could have been done better, but I try to put it in the perspective of the tone of the work overall and the difficulty of pleasing both a cinematic audience and dedicated group of literature fans. I imagine the realisation of this sort of work is a very difficult balancing act, between a lot of different interest groups: story, production, direction, acting, props, music (!), CGI, and of course the moneybags at the top. With that in mind I think the final product was squarely excellent and as faithful as any film was ever going to be.

I think most of the casting choices were inspired. There were a few I thought were underwhelming - Legolas was a pretty boy who couldn't speak Elvish convincingly, Gimli was "meh", and I thought Elrond was just a wooden scowl (although that went for most of the Elves, so it might have been stylistic). Frodo himself was too young and played straight, but I give the series a pass due to the "Matrix" effect - big movies' protagonists are often casted in that "neutral" way to provide a "stand-in" for the audience. But consider some of the bullseyes. The menacing drone of Christopher Lee and the caring whisper of Ian McKellan, both coming from a background on the stage. Theoden brings an absolute presence to any scene he is in, as does Sam Gamgee. That is not even to start on Andy Serkis. Viggo Mortensen, fluent in several languages, whose looks somehow straddle the line between youthful energy and aged wisdom, and who broke his own toes with his method acting - we could have had Nicholas Cage. I have heard people criticise Gandalf by saying he is too recognisable, and they can't help but see Ian McKellan playing a role. One might as well say he's too good for one's liking. I have heard others say that Aragorn was too short. Too short!?! There is just no pleasing some people.

And as for the LOTR dialogue being praised - I wholeheartedly agree. The more source dialogue which can be compellingly brought to life on screen the better. I think the task is more difficult than it seems, though. As George Orwell would tell you, it can be more difficult knowing how to be concise than how to be inclusive. The screenwriters could not pull each scene directly from the books because they are far too long, or don't serve the emotive differences required at that stage of a film, or are simply too obtuse for a modern audience to grapple with. In place of that, the movies have shifted pieces of dialogue from different parts of the books, compressing some, while leaving many climactic moments intact. When I think of the mammoth effort which must have gone into first reading every line of dialogue and description, figuring out which would effectively translate into cinema, and then making the decisions as to which to include and where, it boggles the mind.

Remember that some people actually thought the Gollum scene in AUJ was the lowlight of the film. They said it was too boring and out-of-character for Gollum. Of course, most people thought it was the only redeeming feature of the film. I personally think the scene translated the less menacing Gollum of The Hobbit very well given his character in the LOTR films. But the response of the philistines illustrates the peril of using too much book dialogue in what is ultimately a visual medium. Audiences are going to get bored, or they'll just have no idea what is going on. We have lots of archaic, flowery, source dialogue used in the LOTR films in such a way that it adds tension to scenes, and can be understood via context. Audiences are probably learning new words from these films, and I think it's quite an achievement. It's no coincidence the movies have spawned so many memes given their wealth of quotable lines. The achievement is magnified when we compare the Hobbit films, despite having plenty of room to incorporate source dialogue, invented most of their lines and were accordingly panned.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by The Sixth Wizard

In response to the above about LOTR, I'd say that to me at least, certain narrative changes which fall flat are inevitable in an adaptation of a massive piece of written work. The immensity of the task almost guarantees a few failures, but I am also cynical about Hollywood in general so I am happy with any sort of care taken and quality produced, however hampered. I agree that some of the dramatic roadblocks were cheesy and could have been done better, but I try to put it in the perspective of the tone of the work overall and the difficulty of pleasing both a cinematic audience and dedicated group of literature fans. I imagine the realisation of this sort of work is a very difficult balancing act, between a lot of different interest groups: story, production, direction, acting, props, music (!), CGI, and of course the moneybags at the top. With that in mind I think the final product was squarely excellent and as faithful as any film was ever going to be.

Well said.

I think most of the casting choices were inspired. There were a few I thought were underwhelming - Legolas was a pretty boy who couldn't speak Elvish convincingly, Gimli was "meh", and I thought Elrond was just a wooden scowl (although that went for most of the Elves, so it might have been stylistic). Frodo himself was too young and played straight, but I give the series a pass due to the "Matrix" effect - big movies' protagonists are often casted in that "neutral" way to provide a "stand-in" for the audience. But consider some of the bullseyes. The menacing drone of Christopher Lee and the caring whisper of Ian McKellan, both coming from a background on the stage. Theoden brings an absolute presence to any scene he is in, as does Sam Gamgee. That is not even to start on Andy Serkis. Viggo Mortensen, fluent in several languages, whose looks somehow straddle the line between youthful energy and aged wisdom, and who broke his own toes with his method acting - we could have had Nicholas Cage. I have heard people criticise Gandalf by saying he is too recognisable, and they can't help but see Ian McKellan playing a role.

Odd. That was much more my reaction to Elrond, actually. That first scene between them in Rivendell for me is, "Ah, here's Gandalf...talking to Hugo Weaving".

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Odd. That was much more my reaction to Elrond, actually. That first scene between them in Rivendell for me is, "Ah, here's Gandalf...talking to Hugo Weaving".

I thought Elrond was at any minute preparing to don a pair of Ray-Bans and call Frodo "Neo."

[Morsul the Dark]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I thought Elrond was at any minute preparing to don a pair of Ray-Bans and call Frodo "Neo."

ELrond was the first role I ever saw Hugo in. Same with most of them actually.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

ELrond was the first role I ever saw Hugo in. Same with most of them actually.

Oh my, so many of the actors were often in great movies (or at least memorable enough that I knew them when they appeared on screen) prior to the LotR trilogy. My personal favorites:

Christopher Lee - Every Hammer horror film ever made, The Three Musketeers, The Man With the Golden Gun (James Bond flick)

Ian Holm - The Madness of King George, Brazil, Time Bandits

Ian McKellen - Richard III (the best Richard III film of all!), Gods and Monsters, Cold Comfort Farm

Hugo Weaving - The Matrix, The Interview

Cate Blanchett - Elizabeth, The Talented Mr. Ripley

Sean Bean - Ronin, GoldenEye, Patriot Games

Bernard Hill - Mountains of the Moon, Titanic

Brad Dourif - One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Dune, Mississippi Burning

John Rhys-Davies - Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

Viggo Mortensen - GI Jane, Crimson Tide

Elijah Wood - The Good Son (and a couple crappy cable movies like The Faculty and North

Orlando Bloom - Black Hawk Down (although that was the same year as FotR)

Sean Astin - Several silly teen movies like Rudy, The Goonies and Encino Man

Liv Tyler - In several forgettable movies prior to LotR, but well known beauty-wise, particularly from Aerosmith videos

The rest of the cast, I will admit I didn't know previously (mostly Aussie actors, and Brits who did bit parts before the trilogy), but the above list is pretty extensive.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Weaving was also brilliant in Priscilla Queen of the Desert. As a drag queen, no less.

Elijah Wood's best pre-Frodo role was in Ang Lee's The Ice Storm opposite Christina Ricci. (A fine ensemble cast with Kevin Kline, Joan Allen, Tobey Maguire, Katie Holmes and Sigourney Weaver.)

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Weaving was also brilliant in Priscilla Queen of the Desert. As a drag queen, no less.

Now, if PJ had let him play Elrond and Arwen, that would have been worth the price of admission.

[Morsul the Dark]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Oh my, so many of the actors were often in great movies (or at least memorable enough that I knew them when they appeared on screen) prior to the LotR trilogy. My personal favorites:

Christopher Lee - Every Hammer horror film ever made, The Three Musketeers, The Man With the Golden Gun (James Bond flick)

Ian Holm - The Madness of King George, Brazil, Time Bandits

Ian McKellen - Richard III (the best Richard III film of all!), Gods and Monsters, Cold Comfort Farm

Hugo Weaving - The Matrix, The Interview

Cate Blanchett - Elizabeth, The Talented Mr. Ripley

Sean Bean - Ronin, GoldenEye, Patriot Games

Bernard Hill - Mountains of the Moon, Titanic

Brad Dourif - One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Dune, Mississippi Burning

John Rhys-Davies - Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

Viggo Mortensen - GI Jane, Crimson Tide

Elijah Wood - The Good Son (and a couple crappy cable movies like The Faculty and North

Orlando Bloom - Black Hawk Down (although that was the same year as FotR)

Sean Astin - Several silly teen movies like Rudy, The Goonies and Encino Man

Liv Tyler - In several forgettable movies prior to LotR, but well known beauty-wise, particularly from Aerosmith videos

The rest of the cast, I will admit I didn't know previously (mostly Aussie actors, and Brits who did bit parts before the trilogy), but the above list is pretty extensive.

To be fair I was 13 or 14 and not well versed in movies beyond Jim Carrey.

[Snowdog]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Oh my, so many of the actors were often in great movies (or at least memorable enough that I knew them when they appeared on screen) prior to the LotR trilogy. My personal favorites:

Christopher Lee - Every Hammer horror film ever made, The Three Musketeers, The Man With the Golden Gun (James Bond flick)

Ian Holm - The Madness of King George, Brazil, Time Bandits

Ian McKellen - Richard III (the best Richard III film of all!), Gods and Monsters, Cold Comfort Farm

Hugo Weaving - The Matrix, The Interview

Cate Blanchett - Elizabeth, The Talented Mr. Ripley

Sean Bean - Ronin, GoldenEye, Patriot Games

Bernard Hill - Mountains of the Moon, Titanic

Brad Dourif - One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Dune, Mississippi Burning

John Rhys-Davies - Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

Viggo Mortensen - GI Jane, Crimson Tide

Elijah Wood - The Good Son (and a couple crappy cable movies like The Faculty and North

Orlando Bloom - Black Hawk Down (although that was the same year as FotR)

Sean Astin - Several silly teen movies like Rudy, The Goonies and Encino Man

Liv Tyler - In several forgettable movies prior to LotR, but well known beauty-wise, particularly from Aerosmith videos

The rest of the cast, I will admit I didn't know previously (mostly Aussie actors, and Brits who did bit parts before the trilogy), but the above list is pretty extensive.

Miranda Otto in Thin Red Line.

[Mithalwen]

Miranda Otto was very good in The way we live now -a BBC adaptation of the Anthony Trollope novel.

Hugo Weaving did a few miniseries which were screened here, possibly anglo australian co-productions. Bodyline, Dirtwater dynasty, Bangkok Hilton.

[Pervinca Took]

Did he play the lead in 'Bodyline?' I remember that mini-series very clearly.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Ian Holm: Alien. And Chariots of Fire, for which he was nominated for an Oscar. And King Lear for which he received a BAFTA. And many, many more: I believe his knighthood came before LotR was made; certainly he had been in a huge number of prominent films going back to the early 70s. He also, significantly, played Frodo in the BBC radio adaptation.

Holm, Lee, McKellen and Blanchett were the four "big names" in the cast (and all of them had, or since have, been knighted* for their acting careers.)

--------------
*In Cate's case, by France. Oz doesn't do knighthoods any more.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Pervinca Took

Did he play the lead in 'Bodyline?' I remember that mini-series very clearly.

Yes he was Douglas Jardine and made a good job of humanising an unsympathetic character. I developed a huge schoolgirl crush on him which has endured rather. Priscilla is probably my favourite though!

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

.

Holm, Lee, McKellen and Blanchett were the four "big names" in the cast (and all of them had, or since have, been knighted* for their acting careers.)

--------------
*In Cate's case, by France. Oz doesn't do knighthoods any more.

I doubt she would have accepted a damehood anyway as she is a republican. However she has received the highest homegrown honour having been named Companion of the Order of Australian honour (still on the Queen's birthday list though!).

[Zigûr]

As an Australian I was familiar with David Wenham prior to his appearance as Faramir because he was the first love interest in a soapy TV show called SeaChange.

I think the only cast members I was already aware of were Bean, Lee, Weaving and Rhys-Davies, but I was only twelve when "Fellowship" was released. I'm very glad I'd already read the books a year earlier.

[Faramir Jones]

I think we're in danger of going off topic, in terms of (enjoyably) discussing the previous careers of the actors in the Jackson films...

The Sixth Wizard, I found what you said here interesting:

Remember that some people actually thought the Gollum scene in AUJ was the lowlight of the film. They said it was too boring and out-of-character for Gollum. Of course, most people thought it was the only redeeming feature of the film. I personally think the scene translated the less menacing Gollum of The Hobbit very well given his character in the LOTR films.

The problem I had with the portrayal of that scene was, like with everything that happened inside the Misty Mountains, that it was far too bright, making things not scary enough. This was made worse by this brightness making me think that Bilbo could see the Ring fall from Gollum; so he knew it was the latter's property all along...