CAST FOR THE HOBBIT ANNOUNCED

[RoJoHen]

I honestly think that if we end up seeing different races of men and Hobbits and whatever in "The Hobbit" that most people either won't even notice or won't care. We may not have seen them in LOTR movies, but maybe it's just that simple. We didn't see them. Doesn't mean they weren't around.

 

[Skywalker]

They were around. They just never played a significant role in the story.

 

[Captain Craig]

I honestly think that if we end up seeing different races of men and Hobbits and whatever in "The Hobbit" that most people either won't even notice or won't care. We may not have seen them in LOTR movies, but maybe it's just that simple. We didn't see them. Doesn't mean they weren't around.

That would be me for sure. The Hobbit is the only Tolkien I've ever read and that was 20yrs ago. Never read the LOTR saga. While the movies were good they never hit my "Oh my god I must own them" list. Especially at the prices they wanted. That said, Wal-Mart did have the widescreen of each film for $2 on Black Friday so I picked them up 'cause A-how for $2 can you not and B-with Hobbit looming time to refamilarize myself with the theatrical world of Middle Earth. I honestly haven't seen the films since 2004 when a friend had everyone over at we watched the directors cut of each film, we started at 10am only breaking for lunch and dinner.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

For better or worse, Jackson has relied heavily on the descriptions in the books for his portrayals of the cultures of Middle Earth (each culture, by the way, was described by Tolkien in relatively homogeneous terms). For The Hobbit, we've already seen how he chooses to portray Hobbits, the Elves of Rivendell and the Wood-Elves, Dwarves, and Orcs. What we haven't seen are the people of Lake Town and Beorn. But if Jackson continues to hold true to the description in the books, then we know that Bard will be "dark-haired and grim-faced," while much of the people of Lake Town will look similar to the people of Rohan who were described thusly:

"[The people of Rohan] have long been friends of the people of Gondor, though they are not akin to them. It was in forgotten years long ago that Eorl the Young brought them out of the North, and their kinship is rather with the Bardings of Dale and the Beornings of the Wood, among whom may still be seen many men tall and fair, as are the Riders of Rohan."​

 

[Christopher]

@ Christopher: If you want to beat up on ethnocentrism in British/New Zealish fantasy, I think Harry Potter's a much better target. The population of Asia dwarfs that of the British Isles by how many thousands, and yet we never get the barest mention of what Asian wizards think of the Voldemort situation? Hell, are their Asian wizards, or is Cho unique because she's half-white and both her parents live in England or some such? And why couldn't Hermione have been of Pakistani descent?

A valid point, but at least there are a fair number of nonwhite actors in the films, even if they're only in supporting parts such as Cho, Lavender Brown, the Patil sisters, Kingsley Shacklebolt, etc. Again, we're not just talking about abstract fictional characters, we're talking about fairness in the hiring of real live people. These actors may not be the stars of the film, but at least they're not being excluded from gainful employment.

And there were nonwhite actors in LOTR too, such as Samoan actors Nathaniel Lees and Robbie Magasiva as two of the orcs. Even if there were some legitimate story reason for the film adaptation to stay faithful to a policy of having no visibly non-Caucasian humans, elves, or hobbits (and I don't agree that there is), that wouldn't rule out diverse casting in heavy makeup roles like dwarves or orcs, or purely motion-capture or voiceover roles.

Say what you will about Lord of the Rings, it's supposed to be regressive and culturally narrow-minded.

The books, maybe. But again, there's no reason why an adaptation has to do things the same way as its source material. If you adapt something and don't bring a new approach to it in some way, you're not doing it right.

It doesn't matter that it's a film adaptation. The background story remains the same.

Where in the movies is it ever stated that Middle-earth is Europe? You're bringing that in from materials external to the films themselves. Within the film continuity, Middle-earth is just Middle-earth. Nobody in the films mentions Europe by name because they've never heard of it.

Besides, since when did Europe ever look remotely like New Zealand? They're very different climates. If the movies' Middle-earth (as opposed to the books' Middle-earth) were "really" Europe 6000 years ago, it wouldn't have the climate, ecology, and geography it was shown to have in the films. It's a separate entity, and there's no obligation to assume that everything that's true about the books' Middle-earth must also be true about the movies' Middle-earth.

 

[label]

I honestly think that if we end up seeing different races of men and Hobbits and whatever in "The Hobbit" that most people either won't even notice or won't care. We may not have seen them in LOTR movies, but maybe it's just that simple. We didn't see them. Doesn't mean they weren't around.

This is more or less where I'm at. I don't really care if there are non-white Hobbits in the movies.....unless it was an obvious token gesture or something. To me, provided they aren't put in the movie in such a way as to distract or to that would seem out of place in the Shire, I don't really care and probably wouldn't notice.

That being said, their vision for these movies is to preserve - to the best of their ability - the vision Tolkien had for these books. That's completely their right, as is anyone who's offended right is to choose not to pay to see it. I would imagine what they did in the first 3 movies pretty closely resembles what Tolkien had in mind for Middle earth and hopefully they'll stay true to that vision and not cater to some silly psuedo-politically correct notion that the shire was a middle-age ad for the colors of Benneton.

 

[Kegg]

Even if there were some legitimate story reason for the film adaptation to stay faithful to a policy of having no visibly non-Caucasian humans, elves, or hobbits, that doesn't rule out diverse casting in heavy makeup roles like dwarves or orcs, or purely motion-capture or voiceover roles.

Dwarves aren't that heavy makeup, but this is certainly true.

Say what you will about Lord of the Rings, it's supposed to be regressive and culturally narrow-minded.

The books, maybe. But again, there's no reason why an adaptation has to do things the same way as its source material.

Again, this casting policy would be consistent with the previous Jackson films anyway... which embraced the regressive attitudes of Tolkein's works in other manners.

Broadly speaking the Hobbit/LOTR works are strong anti-modernist, if I wanted to slap a label on them, and the LOTR films delighted in making an even more explicit contrast between the evils of industry - Isengard - and the purity of the natural world - the Ents and trees.

 

[Skywalker]

The materials are external to the films, but the films are based on the materials, so they're a valid basis for any argument regarding them. They already went to the trouble of differentiating the racial groups in LOTR, so I see no reason why they should have to suddenly go in a different direction with The Hobbit when doing so wouldn't fit in with the world that they've established. Now, if The Hobbit were being done by a completely different studio and production company with no ties whatsoever to Peter Jackson or anyone else involved with The Lord of the Rings, that would be different. Arguing for needless changes at this point is just arguing for argument's sake.

 

[RoJoHen]

I don't think anyone is really arguing FOR changes. We're just not going to be opposed to (or even notice) such changes if they happen.

 

[Skywalker]

I'm not opposed to changes, just needless changes that don't actually add anything worthwhile to the films. There were a lot of changes made to the first three movies that were needless but I liked because they made the movies better (skipping Tom Bombadil, for example), and a lot that I hated because they made them worse (the vast majority of Gimli's low-brow humor, mostly in TTT and ROTK).

 

[RoJoHen]

Sure, but for movies like this (at least as a viewer), you kind of have to pretend the books don't exist. My biggest problem with movie adaptations is that people constantly compare them to the original novel, but it's really not fair to do that.

The movies exist separately from the books. People who have never read the books need to be able to watch the films without having any backstory whatsoever. Casting a black guy in "The Hobbit" isn't a needless change. It's just casting a black guy, and it doesn't really upset anything that has been established so far. I certainly didn't watch the LOTR movies and think about the absence of black people, nor would I be phased if some black people showed up in "The Hobbit."

 

[Klaus]

I don't see any bigger problems with black hobbits than black Vulcans, for example...

 

[Skywalker]

There already are darker-skinned Hobbits. But none of the Hobbits who played a major role in the story were of that ethnic group.

Casting a black guy as, say, Thorin would have certainly gone against what's been established so far. Thorin is of the same racial group of Dwarves that Gimli is from (the Longbeards, nicknamed Durin's Folk), as are the other twelve members of his company. It wouldn't fit.

Jackson could suddenly decide to make Bard and the people of Lake-town black, or Asian, and technically it would be okay because their ethnicity hasn't been established in the films. But there's no real reason to do so other than to say "hey, we decided we wanted Bard and his people to be black/Asian." If a change doesn't add anything worthwhile to the movie or make a significant impact upon it, they might as well not bother changing it.

 

[RoJoHen]

Jackson could suddenly decide to make Bard and the people of Lake-town black, or Asian, and technically it would be okay because their ethnicity hasn't been established in the films. But there's no real reason to do so other than to say "hey, we decided we wanted Bard and his people to be black/Asian." If a change doesn't add anything worthwhile to the movie or make a significant impact upon it, they might as well not bother changing it.

What if they found that the best actor for the job was an Asian guy?

 

[Skywalker]

Then by all means, cast the Asian guy. Just as long as he actually is the best actor for the job, and not selected just because they want to make Bard Asian, or for some other arbitrary reason.

 

[RoJoHen]

Well, sure, but I'm referring more with what to do with the rest of his people. Should we then make all of them Asian as well?

 

[Silvercrest]

What about Beorn? He could be any ethnicity.

 

[Gaith]

Moreover, there was absolutely nothing in the movie version of LOTR - and people are entitled to expect continuity and consistency between those movies and these - to say what colour or ethnicity the peoples of the various parts of Middle Earth are meant to have been.

Except for the fact that Elvish sounds a lot like Welsh, so it would have been kinda weird if they all looked Latino, for instance, but spoke an obviously old-fashioned British language.

 

[Skywalker]

Well, sure, but I'm referring more with what to do with the rest of his people. Should we then make all of them Asian as well?

Sure. If he's Asian, it stands to reason that the rest of his people would be Asian, too. Unless this is The Last Airbender.

Moreover, there was absolutely nothing in the movie version of LOTR - and people are entitled to expect continuity and consistency between those movies and these - to say what colour or ethnicity the peoples of the various parts of Middle Earth are meant to have been.

Except for the fact that Elvish sounds a lot like Welsh, so it would have been kinda weird if they all looked Latino, for instance, but spoke an obviously old-fashioned British language.

Actually, there are two major Elvish languages in LOTR: Quenya and Sindarin. Quenya was based on Finnish, and Sindarin was based on Welsh. Quenya is the High Tongue spoken mostly in Valinor, while Sindarin is the common Elvish language in Middle-earth. Most of the character and place names in Middle-earth are derived from Sindarin.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

What about Beorn? He could be any ethnicity.

the people of Lake Town will look similar to the people of Rohan who were described thusly:

"[The people of Rohan] have long been friends of the people of Gondor, though they are not akin to them. It was in forgotten years long ago that Eorl the Young brought them out of the North, and their kinship is rather with the Bardings of Dale and the Beornings of the Wood, among whom may still be seen many men tall and fair, as are the Riders of Rohan."​

^ From The Two Towers.