Radaghast
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 31, 2021
- Messages
- 2,842
Full disclaimer: I think it likely that nobody on this planet cares about this kind of thing but me. Nevertheless, I felt compelled to put it in a post, if only to get it out of my own head. So, here goes (wasn't sure if this was the right forum for this; if not, mods, please move to the appropriate forum):
Comments by Peter Dinklage in a podcast about Disney's upcoming remake of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs led to Disney ditching actual dwarfs and going with "magical companions", and only one dwarf. This led to some criticism from dwarf actors, saying that not using little people for the movie was depriving actors in their community of work, because opportunities for them are so few and far between; it's all well and good for Dinklage who is a big enough name now that he can be hired for a variety of roles that don't have anything to do with his height, but other little actors do not have such profiles. But, anyway, it occurred to me that The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit movies in a sense to pretty much the same thing, i.e. deprive little people of roles in a major Hollywood movie, at least starring roles. I read somewhere the Peter Jackson was advised against using little actors (though I have not verified it), so I'm wondering if there was any controversy or backlash over this. In any event, that is not the main topic of this post, as the title implies.
For whatever reason Peter Jackson didn't use little people except as extras and scale doubles, though they figure rather significantly. Jackson also used camera tricks such as forced perspective (and very tall scale doubles) and special effects when needed. These techniques are effective for the most part because of skilled camerawork and editing. But it's not always so effective, in my humble opinion. The most obvious example is the shot of the Fellowship posing together as if for a photo shoot:
I dunno, as well-composed as this appears at first glance, it just seems off to me if I really scrutinize it, even if I can't quite put my finger on what's off about it. But one thing is that the resolution of the figures in the back does seem to quite jive with those in the front. Also, the hobbits and Gimli maybe seem a bit too diminutive, somehow; not so much short as puny or miniature; especially Gimli, who is a "stout" dwarf" but who here looks, well, puny; also, how far down do his feet go? It doesn't seem like they would logically be on the same level as Boromir; the fact that John Rhys-Davies is 6'1" maybe be a factor as well. Anyway, I think the main thing this shot highlights is that hobbits and dwarves would be proportioned differently than average-sized humans just as little people are and I'm not sure this is well conveyed when the actors full forms are in the frame. Example:
Above is a shot of Elijah Wood next to his scale double, veteran actor Kiran Shah. Wood is listed on IMDb.com as 5'6", and is about 6 heads tall. Shah is listed as 4'1" and about 5 heads tall; so not of equal proportions; you can also see the disparity between Elijah Wood in the photo above and his scale double in the one below. Shah is just about of hobbit height; and in any shots where we don't see Frodo's face, it's Shah, such as in this photo below (not sure if this is a still from the movie or just a photo of the scene).
Again, the proportions are different from Elijah Wood's. If it looks like Wood from that angle, it's because Shah is wearing a mask, as seen in the pic below (another tell is that the complexion of the leg does not match the face).
Here's Kiran Shah without makeup:
https://www.littlekiran.com/lord-of-the-rings
Finally, there's this shot, a promo or publicity photo. None of these actors are very tall but they all still come off as a little too "long-limbed" to come off as hobbits to my eye, even with the big floppy hobbit feet. Hobbits are "less stout and stocky" than dwarves but would still be fairly "squat" if not exactly stout. In other words, these chaps are just a couple of heads too tall.
Anyway, to close, here's an interesting behind-the-scenes video on the training of the scale doubles, a few of which are children:
Comments by Peter Dinklage in a podcast about Disney's upcoming remake of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs led to Disney ditching actual dwarfs and going with "magical companions", and only one dwarf. This led to some criticism from dwarf actors, saying that not using little people for the movie was depriving actors in their community of work, because opportunities for them are so few and far between; it's all well and good for Dinklage who is a big enough name now that he can be hired for a variety of roles that don't have anything to do with his height, but other little actors do not have such profiles. But, anyway, it occurred to me that The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit movies in a sense to pretty much the same thing, i.e. deprive little people of roles in a major Hollywood movie, at least starring roles. I read somewhere the Peter Jackson was advised against using little actors (though I have not verified it), so I'm wondering if there was any controversy or backlash over this. In any event, that is not the main topic of this post, as the title implies.
For whatever reason Peter Jackson didn't use little people except as extras and scale doubles, though they figure rather significantly. Jackson also used camera tricks such as forced perspective (and very tall scale doubles) and special effects when needed. These techniques are effective for the most part because of skilled camerawork and editing. But it's not always so effective, in my humble opinion. The most obvious example is the shot of the Fellowship posing together as if for a photo shoot:
I dunno, as well-composed as this appears at first glance, it just seems off to me if I really scrutinize it, even if I can't quite put my finger on what's off about it. But one thing is that the resolution of the figures in the back does seem to quite jive with those in the front. Also, the hobbits and Gimli maybe seem a bit too diminutive, somehow; not so much short as puny or miniature; especially Gimli, who is a "stout" dwarf" but who here looks, well, puny; also, how far down do his feet go? It doesn't seem like they would logically be on the same level as Boromir; the fact that John Rhys-Davies is 6'1" maybe be a factor as well. Anyway, I think the main thing this shot highlights is that hobbits and dwarves would be proportioned differently than average-sized humans just as little people are and I'm not sure this is well conveyed when the actors full forms are in the frame. Example:
Above is a shot of Elijah Wood next to his scale double, veteran actor Kiran Shah. Wood is listed on IMDb.com as 5'6", and is about 6 heads tall. Shah is listed as 4'1" and about 5 heads tall; so not of equal proportions; you can also see the disparity between Elijah Wood in the photo above and his scale double in the one below. Shah is just about of hobbit height; and in any shots where we don't see Frodo's face, it's Shah, such as in this photo below (not sure if this is a still from the movie or just a photo of the scene).
Again, the proportions are different from Elijah Wood's. If it looks like Wood from that angle, it's because Shah is wearing a mask, as seen in the pic below (another tell is that the complexion of the leg does not match the face).
Here's Kiran Shah without makeup:
https://www.littlekiran.com/lord-of-the-rings
Finally, there's this shot, a promo or publicity photo. None of these actors are very tall but they all still come off as a little too "long-limbed" to come off as hobbits to my eye, even with the big floppy hobbit feet. Hobbits are "less stout and stocky" than dwarves but would still be fairly "squat" if not exactly stout. In other words, these chaps are just a couple of heads too tall.
Anyway, to close, here's an interesting behind-the-scenes video on the training of the scale doubles, a few of which are children:
Last edited:
