The Hobbit: Its Own Tale, it's Own Movie!

[Nóm]

Do you think any potential Hobbit movie is at risk for being a LotR prequel first rather than a tale of it's own which just happens to be a prequel?

Might a director use this as a chance to tell some history on the White Council and Sauron, instead of making it about Bilbo Baggins the brave little hobbit who finally had a great adventure? Will the evilness of the Ring be shown in the movie, or will it end having shown nothing more than a thoughtful look from Gandalf?

In other threads people have talked about continuity being a plus for Jackson making this film, but personally I don't see this as a very good thing. I think The Hobbit is apt to be appended on as nothing more than a continuation of LotR first and a tale of its own second.

The Hobbit deserves to be it's very own movie, adapted from the book without too much concern for LotR. Least of all for LotR the movie! Personaly I say it is also the better of the two tales.

[Arthur_Vandelay]

Do you think any potential Hobbit movie is at risk for being a LotR prequel first rather than a tale of it's own which just happens to be a prequel?

Might a director use this as a chance to tell some history on the White Council and Sauron, instead of making it about Bilbo Baggins the brave little hobbit who finally had a great adventure? Will the evilness of the Ring be shown in the movie, or will it end having shown nothing more than a thoughtful look from Gandalf?

In other threads people have talked about continuity being a plus for Jackson making this film, but personally I don't see this as a very good thing. I think The Hobbit is apt to be appended on as nothing more than a continuation of LotR first and a tale of its own second.

The Hobbit deserves to be it's very own movie, adapted from the book without too much concern for LotR. Least of all for LotR the movie! Personaly I say it is also the better of the two tales.

If Jackson directs it, you can be fairly certain that it will be made as a prequel. Perhaps it would have been easier to make it as a stand-alone movie if it had been made before the LOTR trilogy.

[Maeglin]

Nom, I think that from a movie standpoint, the director will have to do what's best to try and sell the film by somehow alluding towards the ring's evil when Bilbo finds it, and then again towards the end of the film. For purists, this is the wrong thing to do, but it just flows much better with the whole movie, especially since "The Hobbit" will probably be advertised as the prequel to the LotR trilogy. Personally, I would enjoy it more if this was done, I think it would be a nice ending to the movie. Again, you have to think about it from a director's/film companies point of view. If you were them, you wouldn't have the ending just be Gandalf sitting in a chair, smoking a pipe with a thoughtful look on his face...that's a just plain boring end to a movie. Perhaps if Gandalf has more of a fearful look in his face while he is studying Bilbo's ring or something though.....that would stay closer to the actual book, yet make an interesting ending at the same time.

[HLGStrider]

Well, I always did see it as the prequel because there was less than twenty-four hours between finishing the Hobbit and starting the Fellowship of the Ring for me. The begining of the FotR's is Hobbitish enough that the transition went smoothly and it was only about Weathertop that things got into Epic scale and left cute little quest book stage.

Therefore, it wouldn't be a problem for me if the movies were in a similar tone. I think I would be disappointed if they were different in two ways:
A. Some of the actors should carry over, not all, but some. I wouldn't mind a new Bilbo as the LotR Bilbo does look a bit old. I'd like the same Gandalf and possibly the same Elrond.

B. The same composer. I want more of that music!

I think I'd probably like the same sort of cine. ..Cinema. ..cinematograph. . .Why do I try to use these words? Camera work! . . but I don't claim to know enough about movies to comment on that. The same location would also be a nice link.

The same rating-style? No. This is a kid's movie. The Lord of the Rings isn't. Maybe a different screenwriter, in this case, as well.

[HLGStrider]

The ending I'd keep the same!


It's a good ending. This is a lighterhearted work.

I think any connection between ring evilness will be brought about by Gollum. Gollum is always going to be a creepy character, and the threatening nature of his confrontation with Bilbo makes it necessary that he remains so, though there is the ability to make him 'cute."

Just have a scene leading up to where Bilbo finds Gollum that shows Gollum and have him talking to his precious, mumbling about it, totally obsessed with it, etc. Then show Bilbo lie about it. Show him covet it. Show Gollum totally go ballistic when it leaves him. Perhaps have a "I'LL GET YOU FOR THIS BAGGINSESS!" screamed out, implying that he someday will try. Make it ominous when the ring jumps off Bilbo's finger in front of those Goblins.

It can be done.

[HLGStrider]

Hmm. . .

This is going to bring up an old problem brought about by one change they did in the Lord of the Rings: the Frodo age change.

It was somewhat more believeable that the ring was 'dormant' for Bilbo and awake for Frodo because of the time that passed in between Frodo claiming the ring and the actual quest. It had time to grow. Time to work on him. Time for Sauron to regroup.

Possibly there is no way to explain this with the speed it happens in the movies. However, I think only skeptical watchers, or those who have read the books and so know why the time gap was put in place, are going to think about this.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Several thoughts:

The evil nature of the Ring cannot be alluded to although certainly its power and the possible reason for that power can. Why? Because it is through the Ring that Bilbo is able to "triumph" in the story. The Ring allows him to escape the goblin cave. It permits him to save the Dwarves in Mirkwood and free them from their captivity in the dungeons of the Elf king. It also allows him to converse in relative safety with the dragon and learn of his weakness. It allows him to bring the Arkenstone to Bard as a means of at least delaying battle while at the same time hurring along Dain and his followers so that all three forces are in place when the Goblin army arrives and, finally, it allows him to escape being killed in the battle itself. If you make the Ring "evil", you seriously damage the story. Tolkien himself said that the nature of the hobbit's Ring wasn't much on his mind until he started to create a sequal to the story, so of course, in the first book, the Ring is merely "magical". To keep the story as it was intended, the Ring must retain that mysterious power without giving it a more malignant cast. However, this does not necessarily mean that dark hints cannot be made, but these should be kept till the end of the story.

Secondly, Bilbo should not be young! He was 50 years old when he started on his adventure and the book is written from the point of view of a mature hobbit, not a youngster. The actor who portrayed him in LOTR was not too old (at least as shown in the prologue with his dark and abundant hair) and as long as not too much time passes before the film is made - and if Jackson is determined to make T.H. a "prequal", then he should be used again as should McKellan and Weaver. After that, there really isn't anyone present in the first story that relates directly to the second except, of course, for Gollum and since technology is still with us, one assumes that the "actor" is "available".

T.H. is a lighthearted story and should be filmed as such. I hope that Mr. Jackson avoids angst and we get the sort of blithe romp that Professor Tolkien gave us. But then, Mr. Jackson never was too concerned about what Professor Tolkien gave us.... However, we can always hope.

[Maeglin]

hmmm....
I see your point Mrs. Maggot, the evil can only be alluded too, and in a rather discrete manner at that, but not necessarily at the end. I think that the best time (and the right time, since it's the way it happened in the book) to allude to the Ring's evil would be when Bilbo meets up the Dwarves after escaping from the goblin cave, and then decides to keep the manner of his escape a secret from them. Another time, perhaps, would be in Mirkwood when all of the Dwarves are captured by the Spiders, but Bilbo is not because he has the ring on, leaving him all alone. Of course, the Ring also helps him triumph there as well.....I dunno....there's a lot of contradictory and ambiguity in it. :rolleyes:

[HLGStrider]

You could show, but with the danger of taking away from the "rompiness" of it, Ring Evil in several different ways, actually, and in several different places through conflicts of choice.

There are several times within the story that Bilbo has a choice to go one way or go another, for good or for evil. In these instances, perhaps, it is possible to allude to the Ring attempting to influence him, occasionally almost winning out. . .and occasionally it does win out. He lies to the Dwarves, for instance.

Show the little guy as very protective of his ring. Show Gollum as being hyper-ring-taken. And you've got just enough hints.

The other conflicts are influenced by other factors. Perhaps show Bilbo having a desire to put on the ring and run away in a tight spot but staying to help his friends?

Moral conflict will be shown, if done right, several times in this movie. . .What about when Bilbo has the Arkenstone and is sitting there staring at it, wanting it, but eventually does the right thing with it? Big moral conflict.

[Mrs. Maggott]

But actually, aside from Bilbo's reticence to admit that the Ring has enabled him to do things the Dwarves did not believe he could do (such as sneak past Balin during the conference among Gandalf and the Dwarves about returning to the Goblin caves for Bilbo), there is no sign of anything abnormal or suspicious about the hobbit which can be attributed to his possession of the Ring! The Arkenstone calls to Bilbo because it is beautiful, the same reason that for Thorin it is the heart of the mountain! The lure of the treasure has nothing to do with the Ring since Thorin who does not have the Ring is more affected than Bilbo, who does.

Only later on do we hear about Bilbo's "story" regarding how he came to possess the Ring; it is not mentioned in The Hobbit. Indeed, Bilbo willingly enough admits to possessing a "magic" ring when he rescues the Dwarves from both the spiders and the Elves!

I'm afraid, when I read the story (and I read it after LOTR, not before), I could find nothing in the narrative that would have led me to suspect that Bilbo's Ring was anything other than a magic trinket in a children's story. Just look at the closing paragraphs and see if even there you get any "hint" of what is to come.

[HLGStrider]

That's true, when I think about it more. My reading of the Hobbit was slightly tainted by book jacket reading of the Lord of the Rings. I already knew the ring was tricksy and so it seemed a suspicious trinket, if still a trinket, at the time.

I'm only suggesting that it could be hinted at within the context of the book.

[Mrs. Maggott]

That's true, when I think about it more. My reading of the Hobbit was slightly tainted by book jacket reading of the Lord of the Rings. I already knew the ring was tricksy and so it seemed a suspicious trinket, if still a trinket, at the time.

I'm only suggesting that it could be hinted at within the context of the book.
Yes, it could be "hinted at", but I would suggest that the "hint" should be subtle indeed - say a lingering shot at the end of a happy Bilbo surrounded by the comforts of Bag End quietly fingering the Ring on its gold chain. Nothing horribly obvious, very subtle but enough to give the audience pause and to realize that his connection to the Ring is more than would be ordinary in the case of a benign object - and growing. In the end (perhaps with strains of some of LOTR music playing ever so softly in the background) the camera would do a closeup of Bilbo's hand with the Ring and then even closer so that the Ring itself fills the whole scene (maybe even with a little reflection of Bilbo's living room fire) - and then cut! That would certainly give enough clues of troubles to come centered around the Ring without going into too much detail so as to ruin the nature of the story. However, if Mr. Jackson makes the movie, one despairs of the possibilities of any kind of subtlety.

[Kelonus]

I like that idea Mrs. Maggot. It would be a good ending showing the effect of the ring on Bilbo, having us know the effect of the ring, though we already know, but getting that feeling of... well I don't know how to say it, but a feeling that we know what to expect and it's sends exitement down our spines. Does anyone know what I'm trying to say? Heh........

[Eledhwen]

This thread deserves a fresh airing in the light of the upcoming film. Nóm's original question is very interesting. Tolkien started to re-write The Hobbit in the light of The Lord of the Rings; would he have added more 'White Council' stuff, and the evil nature of the Ring? We don't know. I've heard he didn't get past chapter three.

Should the film's director take the prequel line, and cast the story in the light of what comes after?

Younger viewers might not have seen LotR, and Frodo's horrific realisation that he had Sauron's Ring. Should they be considered? Or should the film assume that most of its viewers will have seen LotR and will expect a darker presentation?

I have no problem with a bit of White Council, and Sauron sending his minons out to look for the ring around Anduin, etc; IF it can be done without mentioning whose ring it is, and why it is so important.

If Peter Jackson had kept the Elendilmir in the story; I would have liked to see Sauron handling it in Orthanc after sending his orcs out to keep looking. A great link, but pointless without the mention in the later film.

[Narya]

Got this from IMDB:


According to several different sources the role of Bilbo Baggins in the upcoming film The Hobbit by Guillermo Del Toro(Hellboy) and Peter Jackson(Lord of the Rings) has been given to fan favorite Danny Devito. Devito has neither confirmed nor denied these claims(but he has a mysteriously clear schedule) and Wingnut have stated for the time being the role is still to be filled.

Is he BILBO material?

[Turgon]

I can't see that happening. Devito is wrong in so many ways...:confused:

Last rumour I heard was with James MacAvoy being in the running... I think that would be much more in keeping.

[Narya]

I can't see that happening. Devito is wrong in so many ways...:confused:

Last rumour I heard was with James MacAvoy being in the running... I think that would be much more in keeping.


Isn't James MacAvoy a little too handsome to be Bilbo?

Then again, Elijah Wood was too cute to be Frodo but eventually he became the Hobbit.

[Prince of Cats]

I agree with many in this thread and hope that the Hobbit is presented as its own creation. To me it is Tolkien's most enjoyable work and its own messages and feel have little to do with the whole ring business.

I wouldn't like to see the White Council in the movie at all. If they are thinking of an in-between movie after the hobbit to tie the two together, that's a great place to put them. To include that stuff in the Hobbit movie would belittle the importance of the whole story.

I don't think there should be any business of Gandalf meeting Thorin before Bag End, too. The people watching the movie should be given the humorous story of the dwarves unexpectedly arriving at the house over and over just like the first time they read the books!

The whole world fell in love with Tolkien for a reason, and I think we/they should try to tell the story the way Tolkien did :)

[Illuin]

by Prince of Cats
"To me it is Tolkien's most enjoyable work and its own messages and feel have little to do with the whole ring business."


Really?....over Lord of the Rings? Hmmm....I always thought The Hobbit was very enjoyable, but I don't really think I would have "followed" Tolkien's work if that was all he produced. The connections within his entire lore are what seduce me. This even applies to Lord of the Rings. Without The Silmarillion, I certainly would have enjoyed the tale, but I wouldn't have become obsessed :D.

[Turgon]

Isn't James MacAvoy a little too handsome to be Bilbo?

Then again, Elijah Wood was too cute to be Frodo but eventually he became the Hobbit.

I didn't really think about that Narya...:D

Then again it doesn't say anywhere that Bilbo wasn't handsome. My only problem with Elijah Wood as Frodo is that he was too young for that part - I didn't have too much of a problem with his acting. MacAvoy is older than Wood and closer to that Bilbo might of looked. Seeing as in hobbit-years 33 is about 21 in human terms. I kind of see Bilbo (who is about 50) as looking about 30 years old in human years.

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm274/Serewing/20070126JamesMcAvoy.jpg

Looking at this picture of MacAvoy as the faun in The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. I think he could really pull off the Hobbit look.

Prince of Cats I agree with you about The Hobbit being very enjoyable - I enjoy as much as LoTR if not more. It's the only book I read every year without fail - which must make it the most read book in my collection.

[Prince of Cats]

Prince of Cats I agree with you about The Hobbit being very enjoyable - I enjoy as much as LoTR if not more. It's the only book I read every year without fail - which must make it the most read book in my collection.

Yep! I wouldn't say that the LoTR doesn't do great things for me that the Hobbit doesn't (and that goes both ways!), but I've read the LoTR all the way through maybe 5 times. I couldn't count the times I've read through or listened to audiobooks through the Hobbit on all my toes and fingers :) When I first read it I didn't have the notion of it being a stepping-stone, which is how I think new viewers would enjoy it too

[Narya]

I didn't really think about that Narya...:D

Then again it doesn't say anywhere that Bilbo wasn't handsome. My only problem with Elijah Wood as Frodo is that he was too young for that part - I didn't have too much of a problem with his acting. MacAvoy is older than Wood and closer to that Bilbo might of looked. Seeing as in hobbit-years 33 is about 21 in human terms. I kind of see Bilbo (who is about 50) as looking about 30 years old in human years.

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm274/Serewing/20070126JamesMcAvoy.jpg

Looking at this picture of MacAvoy as the faun in The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. I think he could really pull off the Hobbit look.

Prince of Cats I agree with you about The Hobbit being very enjoyable - I enjoy as much as LoTR if not more. It's the only book I read every year without fail - which must make it the most read book in my collection.

You know, the hottest guy in the first Narnia film is this Faun! I actually saw this film more than once because of MR. TUMNUS. :D

[Illuin]

Here's something GDT said on Saturday August 9th;


As for The Hobbit, Del Toro says that he can't concern himself with making a carbon copy of the massively popular film series his now-producer Jackson directed:

“I’m trying to be faithful to what I read when I was young. That’s The Hobbit I’m serving. I cannot serve a Peter Jackson film. We also hope to bridge the trilogy. We will create an expansion of what lies in the four books and in a number of appendices. I’m not going to New Zealand for two years to do one movie. I’m going there for four years.”

Sounds promising



PS - :confused: I’m still just amazed by how many of you think The Hobbit is Tolkien’s best work http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Confused/sorry.gif. To each his own I guess. That being said; because of its pace and brevity; it's definitely the “best choice” from all of Tolkien’s work for the big screen.

[Prince of Cats]

PS - :confused: I’m still just amazed by how many of you think The Hobbit is Tolkien’s best work http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Confused/sorry.gif. To each his own I guess.


I never said it was his best, I said it was his most enjoyable :) It doesn't have the epic feel of LoTR or the oscillation from great joy to great sorrow of the Silmarillion, but it has magic! :D

Thanks for the Del Toro quote, sounds promising http://www.thetolkienforum.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

[baragund]

After reading the quote Iluin kindly provided, I'm starting to get excited about what Mr. Del Toro has up his sleeve.

As to the discussion about which of Tolkien's works was the most "enjoyable" or the "best", you have to keep in mind that The Hobbit and LOTR are two very different animals. Don't forget, The Hobbit was written as a children's story, and not really intended to be part of his larger mythology. It was meant to be light hearted. That's why you have, among other things, Elves in The Hobbit sitting in trees singing "Tra-la-la-lally" compared to their more serious treatment in LOTR.

Both works are hugely enjoyable on their own level. To ask which one is more enjoyable is like asking yourself if you enjoy a chocolate milkshake more than a lobster dinner.

[Illuin]

by baragund
After reading the quote Iluin kindly provided, I'm starting to get excited about what Mr. Del Toro has up his sleeve.


So am I. It’s gonna be a biggie. Just prior to its release, it just may surpass all when it comes to “most anticipated movie”.


by baragund
Both works are hugely enjoyable on their own level. To ask which one is more enjoyable is like asking yourself if you enjoy a chocolate milkshake more than a lobster dinner.


Very good point; but I’ll take the lobster dinner any day :D.

[Gilthoniel]

Very good point; but I’ll take the lobster dinner any day :D.

I was gonna say I'd take the milkshake any day... Hmmm.

Good point, though. They're both brilliant in their own ways. Excellent point, even if it does make me crave a thickshake...
:p

[baragund]

The key to a good milkshake is to go easy on the milk. At least 3 parts ice cream to 1 part milk. And if you can get hold of some malted milk, so much the better!:)

But I digress...

[YayGollum]

Well, it depends. If some random guy pops out of noplace and offers you a free milkshake or lobster dinner, you might already be full and just have to go with the milkshake. Or mayhaps you just had a lobster dinner last night, and you're feeling more like some pasta, so you have to go with the milkshake. And even if you know that you'll get the offer ahead of time, mayhaps you have had so many lobster dinners recently that it's hard to get excited about yet another, so you go with the milkshake. Is my bias for the lobster dinner showing? Anyways, you can jazz yourself up for either via not partaking of such things for a while. Besides, you'll only find out that the lobster dinner only comes with fake butter, some still flaky just re-hydrated potatoes, and some mushy squash, because that's what the chef feels is best. Also, for the milkshake, you were expecting chocolate, and you got strawberry. Yuck.

[Eledhwen]

Having been away, I had to read back several posts to find out how The Hobbit discussion had got onto chocolate milkshake and lobster dinner. :rolleyes:

... and anyone who serves a lobster dinner with rehydrated potatoes should be shot at dawn for a week!

PS - I’m still just amazed by how many of you think The Hobbit is Tolkien’s best work . To each his own I guess. That being said; because of its pace and brevity; it's definitely the “best choice” from all of Tolkien’s work for the big screen.The Hobbit holds a special place in Tolkien literature, as it was the toe in the door of major success for The Professor, finding its way into an untried genre through the indulgence of Rayner Unwin's father, who published it believing he might have to carry a loss. The Lord of the Rings would never have been written otherwise; and The Silmarillion would be gathering dust in a trunkful of treasured possessions at Christopher Tolkien's place.

[Nóm]

The Hobbit holds a special place in Tolkien literature, as it was the toe in the door of major success for The Professor, finding its way into an untried genre through the indulgence of Rayner Unwin's father, who published it believing he might have to carry a loss. The Lord of the Rings would never have been written otherwise; and The Silmarillion would be gathering dust in a trunkful of treasured possessions at Christopher Tolkien's place.
And a special in the hearts of readers who were first introduced to Middle-earth by the book, even though we might love The Silmarillion more in many ways. I identified with Bilbo's timidness & longing for adventure while you let life pass by. This hook, along with the whimsy and charming introduction kept me reading. I often wonder had I started with LotR (as a non-reader of fantasy) would I have got beyond the first chapter? Honestly, the proloque might have put me off.

Another point on McAvoy, I think he has the voice for Bilbo. When I read it, I imagine a gentler spoken Baggins than Ian Holm. (Holm's performance was super all the same.) It would also avoid the issue of having someone from the U.S. put on a British accent like Frodo and Sam did in LoTR.

[Eledhwen]

Another point on McAvoy, I think he has the voice for Bilbo. When I read it, I imagine a gentler spoken Baggins than Ian Holm. (Holm's performance was super all the same.) It would also avoid the issue of having someone from the U.S. put on a British accent like Frodo and Sam did in LoTR.He is also very expressive - Bilbo has huge emotional trials in The Hobbit, and I hope they pick someone who can portray this well. I have to agree about the British accents; they were well done by the American actors, but there were slips - and we Brits noticed (Mortensen didn't even try to moderate his accent for "Let the Lord of the Black Lands come forth!"). Ironically, The West Country/Berkshire accent Sean Astin adopted because he could not lose his strong American 'R' was one of the most convincing.

[HLGStrider]

If it were up to me, the Hobbits and men of Bree would have had British accents but I don't think the other men necessarily would've. After all, the men weren't British, they were Gondorian or Rohirrim or whatever. Aragorn was supposed to be able to take on a different form of speech so it would've been appropriate (if confusing) to have him start out with a slight accent and slowly lose it.

I remember when Rangerdave admitted to a pet peeve about actors taking on fake British accents to play in Romeo and Juliet when all the characters in Romeo and Juliet are actually Italian. . .

You could argue that because it was written by an Englishman it should always be performed that way, but I think it is up for interpretation.

[Nóm]

That irks me as well in movies! Everybody gets tired of me complaining about it. And it is just as bad when you are watching a film where people in some other country where English is not very common all seem to speak English at all times in the film! I was the only one I knew who was thankful Apocalypto was subtitled - made it real! (Thank you, thank you Mel Gibson!)

And in the old days it seems everybody in Europe spoke British English! However did it go from so widespread to become isolated on those Islands off to the west of the main continent? In films people in those situations have British accents, even if the film is made by Americans - well what gives, just speak plain ol American English then! Like British is automatically a default for exotic to us dumb Americans :rolleyes:. This kept me from watching ... Alexander or something (Tolerated in Gladiator and Troy:rolleyes: ). Oh yeah and Australian is acceptable as well - but better not speak like you're from Joisey, or from Southern California cause thats like, totally like unacceptable dude.

Back to the films though - Ideally, the films would give different accents of English (Scandinavian types for Rohan for instance) to the Westron speaking people based on where at in Middle-earth they are from because there were differences in M-e Westron based on location and what your First language is, and then there were the higher spoken and plainer spoken people. But who can honestly expect such attention to language from some random director. I told myself Sam and Frodo sound so different - different dialects because of their up-bringings but what about those other hobbits in that Green Dragon scene? From different areas of the Shire? :rolleyes:

P.S. I disagree with RD on Romeo and Juliet though. That is a good exception I think, just like with LoTR. It's better they speak the language in which the poetry was written. Who wants to hear a language they don't understand (not counting those who know Italian of course!) while reading what Shakespeare actually wrote at the bottom of the screen? How well does it translate to Italian I wonder?

[HLGStrider]

P.S. I disagree with RD on Romeo and Juliet though. That is a good exception I think, just like with LoTR. It's better they speak the language in which the poetry was written. Who wants to hear a language they don't understand (not counting those who know Italian of course!) while reading what Shakespeare actually wrote at the bottom of the screen? How well does it translate to Italian I wonder?

I wasn't suggesting they speak in Italian because the main point of Shakespeare is Shakespeare's language. The man invented a good deal of words in English and I think he would prefer to always be performed in that language. I was suggesting they loose the fake British accent. I did a lot of Shakespeare in school and never wanted to try a British accent on it. For one thing, I'm not capable. My brother, on the other hand, is very capable in that he can fool most Americans into thinking he is English if he really wants to and has fooled some people at certain times. He did the same plays without an accent and I think it was more convincing.

I was recently watching the bonus features on the first season of Star Trek TNG, and Mirina Sirtis, the actress who played Troi, has an accent that I have never been able to place, but which is also completely different when she talks out of character. I guess she is Greek but was told to "make up" an accent for her alien accent and chose to immitate and Isreali friend. I would kind of like to see something like that for races in fantasy books, a made up accent that would come from them speaking a particular language. I think with a large number of people it would be very hard to orchestrate though.

Oh, and I once had a top ten things I learned from the movies list, which I can't remember in its entirety but part of it was "If undercover behind enemy lines it is not necessary to actually speak the language, a simple accent will suffice."

[baragund]

the men weren't British, they were Gondorian or Rohirrim or whatever. Aragorn was supposed to be able to take on a different form of speech so it would've been appropriate (if confusing) to have him start out with a slight accent and slowly lose it.


I wonder what an Adunaic accent sounds like....

Regarding the actress who played Deanna Troi in Star Trek, she sounds exactly like an Iranian woman I work with. So I always figured the language they speak on Deanna Troi's home planet was akin to Farsi.:D