Current Events > Unpopular opinion - I hated Hugo Weaving as Elrond

(+) Yeah! (+)

I always thought elves should be a mix of pretty and androgynous. Hugo IMO isnt all that attractive, but more importantly he looks too manly.

That is all.

Elrond is half-elf, tho.

That's the correct opinion

Elrond in RoP was so much better

Questionmarktarius posted...

Elrond is half-elf, tho.

do they ever say that in any of the books JRR actually published?

MarthGoomba posted...

That's the correct opinion

Elrond in RoP was so much better

I read that David Bowie was one of their desired actors for the role. A David Bowie Elrond would have somehow made LOTR even better.

I was actually thinking this the other day, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized that Weaving worked really well for movie-Elrond. Other noteworthy elves like Legolas, Galadriel, Celebrimbor all have that aloof, otherworldly androgyny, but considering the expansions the movie gave to Elrond's character (most notably seeing him as both a battle-hardened war vet and a doting, concerned father over Arwen), it made sense for him to look more careworn and relatable than the rest.

Norman_Smiley posted...

do they ever say that in any of the books JRR actually published?

Yes it's in The Silmarillion

I thought he choose to be elf though, while his brother chose to be human. So I think he should still look like a full elf, unless I'm mistaken.

EndOfDiscOne posted...

Yes it's in The Silmarillion

I thought he choose to be elf though, while his brother chose to be human. So I think he should still look like a full elf, unless I'm mistaken.

The Silmarillion wasnt edited or published by JRR, that was done by Christopher. Because of that I dont consider the Silmarillion cannon, even if his estate says it is.

Norman_Smiley posted...

The Silmarillion wasnt edited or published by JRR, that was done by Christopher. Because of that I dont consider the Silmarillion cannon, even if his estate says it is.

Really? I'm reading The Fall of Numenor atm and in it they say Tolkien tried to get The Simarillion published at the same time as LotRs

I thought he did very well tbh.

RoP's Elrond blew it out the park and beyond though.

Norman_Smiley posted...

The Silmarillion wasnt edited or published by JRR, that was done by Christopher. Because of that I dont consider the Silmarillion cannon, even if his estate says it is.

I mean, it's all his writing and notes so it's 100% canon. But regardless, while you're saying Silmarillion isn't canon you're complaining about a literal adaptation that takes liberties all over the place anyway.

You know what's a far more glaring issue than Elrond not looking feminine enough? Sauron being a disembodied eye.

I thought they could have picked someone better as well. He comes across angry and irritated and not a wise Elf lord. He doesn't come across that way in the book. The writing for him sucked too. Dude is a bigot that thinks men are weak, but he has mannish blood (he's literally known as Elrond the half elven by many) and his brother chose to become a man and started the long lineage of Numenorean kings that Aragorn is a decedent of.

Speaking of Aragorn, I hated how they made him full of self doubt and ashamed of being Isildur's heir. The line "You are Isildur's heir, not Isildur himself" is a line he says in the books that they took and used for Arwen. Aragorn wanted to kcik Mordor's ass, marry Arwen, and become king.

Yeah, it's typical movie conflict stuff, but I don't think it was needed at all anyway.

Norman_Smiley posted...

The Silmarillion wasnt edited or published by JRR, that was done by Christopher. Because of that I dont consider the Silmarillion cannon, even if his estate says it is.

It's not perfect and has some issues and minor inconsistencies, but there's no reason to declare it non-canon.

ArchNemo posted...

You know what's a far more glaring issue than Elrond not looking feminine enough? Sauron being a disembodied eye.

Also stupid. They say he has a body in the books. It's like Peter Jackson and co. took the all seeing "eye of Sauron" literally.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Hot take: even though I love the books and am generally a purist in this regard, the vast majority of the book-protagonists are so one-note that I appreciate the movies giving them more flaws and depth.

For the kind of story LOTR is, I don't mind the characters being that one note or too perfect since it's a retelling of this epic legend from eons ago. I guess it's different for a movie, but personally I think his particular part there was unneeded. I don't know why I said I "hated" it. I can easily live with it especially when other changes to some characters bug me more.

Southernfatman posted...

For the kind of story LOTR is, I don't mind the characters being that one note or too perfect since it's a retelling of this epic legend from eons ago. I guess it's different for a movie, but personally I think his particular part there was unneeded. I don't know why I said I "hated" it. I can easily live with it especially when other changes to some characters bug me more.

I love anything to do with Middle-Earth but let's face it, the LOTR movies were popular because of the changes, not in spite of them.

A one to one adaptation of LOTR would not have been even marginally as popular of a trilogy.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Elrond is half-elf, tho.

Elrond is commonly referred to as half-elven but in reality he's 56.25% Elven.

ArchNemo posted...

I love anything to do with Middle-Earth but let's face it, the LOTR movies were popular because of the changes, not in spite of them.

A one to one adaptation of LOTR would not have been even marginally as popular of a trilogy.

I don't think a 1:1 adaptation would be super great as movies either (maybe a miniseries if anything), but I wouldn't go so far as to say it being changed was what made it successful. Outside of the exclusion of a couple of certain chapters, most of the changes are relatively minor. Just saying that certain characterization of Aragorn didn't make or break the movie.

Southernfatman posted...

I don't think a 1:1 adaptation would be super great as movies either (maybe a miniseries if anything), but I wouldn't go so far as to say it being changed was what made it successful. Outside of the exclusion of a couple of certain chapters, most of the changes are relatively minor. Just saying that certain characterization of Aragorn didn't make or break the movie.

I disagree. The entire tone of the movie is different. Like you said, the novels are telling a legend that's part of a story of an entire world. It's a slow, epic fairy tale.

The movies are very much a summer blockbuster with an LOTR theme. They're great for what they are, but the changes effectively change what LOTR is supposed to be and made it palatable enough for casual audiences to enjoy.

Why Mr baggins, why do you persist?

Scattereddividedleaderless

ArchNemo posted...

I disagree. The entire tone of the movie is different. Like you said, the novels are telling a legend that's part of a story of an entire world. It's a slow, epic fairy tale.

The movies are very much a summer blockbuster with an LOTR theme. They're great for what they are, but the changes effectively change what LOTR is supposed to be and made it palatable enough for casual audiences to enjoy.

You're right in that they're a more casual version of the story and that the book does explore more themes and such, but I don't think the movies are completely antithetical, for lack of a better word, or totally contradictory to the books. Granted, it's been a good while since I've watched them.

We got really lucky they were made when they were and by who they were made by. Even if I disagree with some of his decisions, some even strongly, Peter Jackson was still the best pick to make them. If made by anyone else in any different time, especially in the modern day, they would be even more different.

Southernfatman posted...

You're right in that they're a more casual version of the story and that the book does explore more themes and such, but I don't think the movies are completely antithetical, for lack of a better word, or totally contradictory to the books. Granted, it's been a good while since I've watched them.

We got really lucky they were made when they were and by who they were made by. Even if I disagree with some of his decisions, some even strongly, Peter Jackson was still the best pick to make them. If made by anyone else in any different time, especially in the modern day, they would be even more different.

Yeah, I mean I'm not arguing they're not great but when people complain about changes in the adaptation they're ignoring that the changes that made it more of an action blockbuster are why they're so popular. Would it have been as good as a 1 for 1 adaptation? Sure, everything as done right they still would have been quality.

As popular? No chance.

Southernfatman posted...

For the kind of story LOTR is, I don't mind the characters being that one note or too perfect since it's a retelling of this epic legend from eons ago.

I hate to say this, but even though Tolkien borrowed a lot from real epics, he made them very vanilla and uptight in a Catholic sort of way. The original sagas LOTR was based on featured rape, incest, murder tragedy, heroes who were sometimes assholes, and so on.

I know there weren't elves at Helms Deep, but I personally enjoyed it.

Lol remember that one time aragon saw long sleek black hair beneath a hood and thought he was gonna see the hot arwen and then the face is revealed and it's like "gah! Its elrond!"

I can't be the only one who thought that in movie 3