by Russell R Cera
Challenge...
Challenge...
What do you do when your cast consists of a furry footed hobbit, an old grey wizard and thirteen stout thick bearded dwarves? Then throw in a gangly creature with big eyes, a fire breathing dragon, orcs, trolls and what else have you. With rare appearances by female characters and no swashbuckling, easy on the eyes hero to carry the film, suddenly, you have the makeup for a J.R.R. Tolkien classic - The Hobbit.
So the challenge becomes this - How do you make an audience identify with individual characters in a monster cast that demands equal screen time for more than a dozen faces? A novel can do this more effectively as it is not held to a particular time frame (albeit, Peter Jackson stretches the boundary of running time better than anyone). Even more importantly, in modern day franchise building Hollywood, what do you do when each one of them, just by script alone, doesn't require an attractive appearance that will lure a particular demographic to theaters?
The answer to that is, you make one from out of nowhere.
Strangely enough, Peter Jackson and team didn't have the same issue in The Lord of the Rings, or if they did, they solved it by casting. Aragorn, played by Viggo Mortensen and Legolas by Orlando Bloom (who has a very short cameo in The Hobbit), became instant heartthrobs, ticket sales soared and their individual careers skyrocketed. Even smaller parts in Tolkien's texts provided enough material to construct major roles for Liv Tyler's Arwen and Miranda Otto's Eowyn, both of which are exceptionally appealing in their own right. Yet even Tolkien buffs admit, that as wonderful as the films are, there were plenty of decisons made that compromised the text and were delivered to appeal directly to a wider movie going public that doesn't sit well through three hour epics.
Move now to 2011. The Hobbit is currently in progress, and photos of the entire Dwarf cast have been released to a hungry fan base. While each of the thirteen are decked out and designed with individual flare, from costume to hair design, there is at least one very glaring decision in casting that seems ponderous in regards to the source material. Pictured above are Fili (Dean O' Gorman) and Kili (Aidan Turner), brothers and the youngest of the Dwarf clan set out to recapture their treasure from an iniquitous dragon. Of physical note in Tolkien's The Hobbit, both Fili and Kili wear blue cloaks (not pictured?) and have yellow beards.
Wait... yellow beards... did Kili dye it out before the quest?
Fili is said to have the largest nose of the thirteen, which seems accurate, and at very least he has retained his golden locks. Yet gone also are the dwarven features, more so with Turner's Kili, who looks more like a miniature human brother to Aragorn than a dwarf on his best day. His frame is slender and his look brooding; one can hardly imagine this guy plays a fiddle. It might even be more conceivable that he pulls out an electric guitar and wails out. To put it plainly, if one were to play "Which Dwarf doesn't fit?" - the answer would be as plain as the nose on Fili's face.
It truly is frustrating - today's age of the Hollywood Blockbuster (which inevitably changes it's title to franchise as soon as it rakes in two times the expenses or more) when the rethinking of a character's overall look, costume or gear is done so to suit a franchise's needs over faithful representation. This is not to besmirch in any way Mr. Turner, who will more than likely bring his talents to the role and do a wonderful job. However, the dark haired good looking, shortly cropped bearded man is such a departure that it seems almost unnecessary. Would he not suit the role if in fact he had to dye that beard and hair to play Kili?
Surely this is entirely a "Hollywood" decision. Someone, somewhere in the ranks called that in a host of thirteen dwarves, at least one of them had to appeal in a physical way to a female demographic. Set aside the idea that he might reach up to at best most women's breasts.
Now this isn't to say that Turner's Kili will turn audiences away due to his lack of physical authenticity, but will surely piss off even the most casual of Tolkien fans, whose voices are heard clearly through channels like this and other social media. Most movie goers won't know there is need for any criticism, as most will be bedazzled by incredible creatures and effects from one end of the screen to the other.
So, in the end of this particular rant, will changes like this make or break The Hobbit as a film and eventual franchise? Probably not. However, it does make at least this fan scratch his head, wondering about all the other ponderous decisions movie makers cook up to sell tickets. In the case of The Hobbit, it seems a travesty that film can trump it's source material from which it's own success rides upon in a manner that is purely fashionable and most definitely financial.
Wait... yellow beards... did Kili dye it out before the quest?
Fili is said to have the largest nose of the thirteen, which seems accurate, and at very least he has retained his golden locks. Yet gone also are the dwarven features, more so with Turner's Kili, who looks more like a miniature human brother to Aragorn than a dwarf on his best day. His frame is slender and his look brooding; one can hardly imagine this guy plays a fiddle. It might even be more conceivable that he pulls out an electric guitar and wails out. To put it plainly, if one were to play "Which Dwarf doesn't fit?" - the answer would be as plain as the nose on Fili's face.
It truly is frustrating - today's age of the Hollywood Blockbuster (which inevitably changes it's title to franchise as soon as it rakes in two times the expenses or more) when the rethinking of a character's overall look, costume or gear is done so to suit a franchise's needs over faithful representation. This is not to besmirch in any way Mr. Turner, who will more than likely bring his talents to the role and do a wonderful job. However, the dark haired good looking, shortly cropped bearded man is such a departure that it seems almost unnecessary. Would he not suit the role if in fact he had to dye that beard and hair to play Kili?
Surely this is entirely a "Hollywood" decision. Someone, somewhere in the ranks called that in a host of thirteen dwarves, at least one of them had to appeal in a physical way to a female demographic. Set aside the idea that he might reach up to at best most women's breasts.
Now this isn't to say that Turner's Kili will turn audiences away due to his lack of physical authenticity, but will surely piss off even the most casual of Tolkien fans, whose voices are heard clearly through channels like this and other social media. Most movie goers won't know there is need for any criticism, as most will be bedazzled by incredible creatures and effects from one end of the screen to the other.
So, in the end of this particular rant, will changes like this make or break The Hobbit as a film and eventual franchise? Probably not. However, it does make at least this fan scratch his head, wondering about all the other ponderous decisions movie makers cook up to sell tickets. In the case of The Hobbit, it seems a travesty that film can trump it's source material from which it's own success rides upon in a manner that is purely fashionable and most definitely financial.
