What do Hobbit's look like?
Jonathan Beckett
that she had always imagined Hobbits as little furry creatures - not
unlike "little people that are furry".
I think of them as thick-set stocky little human form people - ruddy in
complexion, very rough and tumble if you will. Maybe a bit like the old
Kobold legends?
Gandalf on the other hand would be much taller than the normal Hobbits.
How has everybody else imagined them?
Jonathan Beckett
www.kafooey.com
OMeallyMD
>I was talking with my Fiance,Wendy, the other night and it cropped up
>that she had always imagined Hobbits as little furry creatures - not
>unlike "little people that are furry".
I think she's confusing Hobbits with rabbits.
>I think of them as thick-set stocky little human form people - ruddy in
>complexion, very rough and tumble if you will. Maybe a bit like the old
>Kobold legends?
That's more like it. But they are as varied as anyone else. Our bourgeois
burglar Bilbo Baggins who probably did little more than some occasional
gardening would hardly develop a *rough and tumble* complexion. Whereas Sam or
the Gaffer (Oh, you'll get to them) would.
>Gandalf on the other hand would be much taller than the normal Hobbits.
True, except Gandalf wasn't a Hobbit.
Enjoy the books! Watch for spoilers in the NGs.
Bill
"Wise fool."
Gandalf, "The Two Towers"
David Salo
<j...@jonandwendy.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I think of them as thick-set stocky little human form people - ruddy in
> complexion, very rough and tumble if you will. Maybe a bit like the old
> Kobold legends?
> How has everybody else imagined them?
About three feet tall, with approximately the proportions of a child of
that height, fairly plump, both males and females being beardless, with
dark, curly hair on their heads and feet.
DS
Bastard Toadflax
David Salo wrote:
Not even their clams?
Sam (Bearded Clams, Inc.) Sands
Flesh And Wine
Well since the TB episode is dropped from the movie we'll never know
will we. (not for clams of course, but whether the asparagus was
weeded)
I don't remember the name of the guardsman in Gondor but he said that
Pippin looked like a 'lad of nine summers'. Presumably a very well
fed lad.
LadyCin
Jonathan Beckett <j...@jonandwendy.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.15a318dec...@news.demon.co.uk...
> I was talking with my Fiance,Wendy, the other night and it cropped up
> that she had always imagined Hobbits as little furry creatures - not
> unlike "little people that are furry".
>
> I think of them as thick-set stocky little human form people - ruddy in
> complexion, very rough and tumble if you will. Maybe a bit like the old
> Kobold legends?
I've always imagined them as human-shaped but only about 3 feet tall, very
chubby and cheerful looking...curly dark hair on their heads and the top of
their feet...somewhat like a midget but more normally proportioned...no
offense to any little folk on the ng.
> Gandalf on the other hand would be much taller than the normal Hobbits.
Gandalf was Istari...basically human shaped but a little taller than the
norm
Öjevind Lång
The Stoors tended to have (rather weak) facial growth. It probably came from
associating too much with Dwarves.
Öjevind
”At last, I have persuaded Yoda to tell me the secret of the universe. It is
all contained in a single sentence: ’The banana is great, but the skin is
greater’.”
(From "The Diary of a Redneck jedi")
Luke Goaman-Dodson
news:MPG.15a318dec...@news.demon.co.uk...
up
> that she had always imagined Hobbits as little furry creatures - not
> unlike "little people that are furry".
I imagined them as green rabbits for a while, I was about nine then
though.
Zip_Vortex42
> How has everybody else imagined them?
The way Tolkien described them.
Paul. ;o)
Zip_Vortex42
"Flesh And Wine" <the_shire@a_gated_community.com> suggested...
> I don't remember the name of the guardsman in Gondor but he said that
> Pippin looked like a 'lad of nine summers'. Presumably a very well
> fed lad.
I'd have thought that "a Lad of Nine Summers" would be a nine year old boy.
Paul :o)
G. M. Watson
----------
In article <MPG.15a318dec...@news.demon.co.uk>, Jonathan Beckett
<j...@jonandwendy.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Why worry about it? The LOTR movie will set in stone the definitive look for
hobbits and everyone else in Middle-Earth, not to mention Middle-Earth
itself, for generations to come, and none of us will ever have to put our
imaginations to all that tiring work again. What a relief!
Robert Strickland
for
> hobbits and everyone else in Middle-Earth, not to mention Middle-Earth
> itself, for generations to come, and none of us will ever have to put our
> imaginations to all that tiring work again. What a relief!
Pure nonsense. All you have to do is look at the history of the artwork
surrounding the LOTR to see that personal visions of the book have been many
and varied and continue to be despite years of influence.
Rob
G. M. Watson
----------
In article <9hhs4v$v55$06$1...@news.t-online.com>, "Robert Strickland"
<robertst...@hotmail.com> wrote:
There's never been and never will be a collection of Tolkien artwork that
cost $250 million to publish, nor a collection that will be mass-marketed on
a massive scale around the world, with vast merchandising tie-ins, comic
book (excuse me, "graphic novel") adaptations, computer games, in-store
promotions, hundreds of thousands of posters on bedroom walls around the
world, saturation worldwide TV, cybermedia, and print media coverage--- you
are not going to *believe* how many magazine covers and articles this movie
is going to be featured on-- lucrative negotiations for TV and multmedia
rights, expensive promotional tours featuring noted Hollywood movie stars,
Oscar campaigns... and on and on.
The money people behind the LOTR movie have way, way too much riding on this
venture to tolerate any risks. They-- and the shareholders they answer to--
will be bitterly disappointed indeed if moviegoers do NOT forever after
envision, for example, Tyler & Mortenson when they read the "Tale of Aragorn
and Arwen". That's one of the ways movie studios maximize long-term profits.
Make your product a household word. Anything less would be seen as a
catastrophic marketing failure.
It's going to take 20 years at least to deprogram potential LOTR readers
from the effects of all this. Do you seriously think anyone nowadays could
read "Gone With the Wind" without thinking of Clark Gable & Vivien Leigh?
David O. Selznick's bogus casting search for an actress to play Scarlett
O'Hara was one of Hollywood's greatest marketing triumphs. Why do you think
it's such big news every time a new actor is recruited to play James Bond,
or why there's been such a protracted argument to determine who will play
Jack Ryan in a new series of movies, since Tom Clancy has decided he can't
stand Harrison Ford in the role? Because every Hollywood producer knows that
in the public mind, the leading actors in a blockbuster with sequel
potential become irrevocably identified with the characters they play. More
than 20 years after he last played the role, people still say that Sean
Connery IS James Bond. *That* sort of success is what, to Hollywood, the
game is all about. And that's why I dread the imminent arrival of everything
I've outlined here. It's always a tragedy to watch great art be transformed
into just another commodity to be sold.
....But I digress. See you at the other argument.
>
>