Sep 15, 2012

Posted by in Featured Articles, Photos | 165 Comments

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Character Gallery

Just released… a new gallery of character photos from The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey with portraits of Bilbo, Gandalf, and all of Thorin’s company of dwarves.

Balin

Picture 1 of 15

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

  1. Amazing!!!!!!!!

  2. LegolasPippin says:

    These are the pictures on the Hobbit Movie app, its nice to see that those who don’t have apple products can see some of the things on the app!

  3. And women, there are no?

    • The Shpydar says:

      hmmm talking funny you are.

      I just finished reading the Hobbit to my son. There are no Women in the Hobbit. And by no I mean absolutely none. Any Women you see in the film(s) are put there by Peter because they aren’t there in the book.

      In fact the only mention of Women in the Hobbit are Belladonna Took, Bilbo’s mother (dead before the story starts) Thorin’s sister, mother of Fili and Kili, and then Bilbo’s eventual nieces.

      Expecting pictures of Women from the movie will be far and few between and they will only be there by some desire by Peter to be Politically Correct then correct to the Novel.

      • wanderingbishop says:

        Well, it’d be more because there would have been some women as background characters, even if they weren’t directly mentioned. You’re not going to suggest that none of the Lakemen or Hobbits had wives, are you?

        • There are women in Middle Earth… notably Galadriel… the elven princess… Go ahead and dive into The Lord of The Rings, there you will discover more.

          • of course there are women in Middle Earth. About half the population of the Hobbits, Elves and Men are of the female gender. not sure what the ratio of dwarf men/women is… and nobody has seen ent wifes for many ages.
            Anyway: In the book ‘the hobbit’ there is harly any word reffering to women.

          • The Shpydar says:

            Again read my post.

            In the book The Hobbit the only mention of women are;

            Belladonna Took, Bilbo’s mother (dead before the story starts)

            Thorin’s sister, mother of Fili and Kili, (un-named in the Hobbit)

            Bilbo’s eventual nieces. (un-named)

            That is it. No more. Galadriel and Arwen are part of LoTR which was written after the Hobbit. Any addition of them to the story are out of the Hobbit context.

            In the end it is unrealistic to expect photo’s of Women in a movie about a book that contains only vague mention of 3 women and contains no actual female characters.

            Yes we know Galandriel is going to be in the movie and yes there will be shots of females as background actors but they do not have large enough roles to warrant publicity shots.

          • i believe gandalf says something about the meeting of the wise(gandalf, ciridan, celeborn, saruman, elrond, galadriel ect.) in the hobbit, where they discuss what to do about the necromancer, this is happening while bilbo is lost in northern mirkwood. even though it doesnt directly say anything about galadriel she is present at the meeting of the wise. it is an interpretation but at least its an accurate one.

        • All of you forgot Éowyn! She killed Sauron’ most deadly servant, remember. Of course, the hobbit took place long before she ever existed but I just thought I should mention her in case you’d actually forgotten.

          • Oh, just read Daelstrom’s comment. I will correct my own by saying “most of you forgot”.

          • Olivia McKenna says:

            Thorin’s sister’s name was Dis. Only about 1/3 of the dwarf race is females, and not all of them married, so their race grew only very slowly.

    • Daelstrom says:

      Tolkien was a scholar of ancient mythology, such as Beowulf, and his work echoed many of the themes and style.
      The mention of women and romance for that matter was rare in these texts of the time, and Tolkien followed this as a homage to the genre, rather than modernise it.
      In fact Éowyn was said to be included in LOTR for the sake of his daughter

      Peter has stated that he will have non-canon female character (Tariel?) a female wood elf – in a non-romantic role

      • Actually, rumors are going around that Tauriel will be romantically involved with the dwarf, Kili (played by Aidan Turner). I have mixed feelings about that, personally, because elves and dwarves just do NOT happen, especially, all things considered, Tauriel is a Mirkwood elf and Kili is Thorin’s nephew, giving off the impression that since Thorin hates the Mirkwood elves, he would never let his nephew be romantically involved with a Mirkwood elf – BUT… that’s beside the point. I’ve taken a wait-and-see stance with Tauriel’s character, though since she wasn’t anywhere in LOTR or The Hobbit (or any of Tolkien’s works for that matter) I’m not inclined to like her. She’s like Peter Jackson’s very own fanfiction character.

        • Travis Peter Jackson says:

          This is a trip in which no female came nor would have in real life. Dwarves are unrelated to Amazons. Elves wouldn’t freely reveal their women to just anyone.

          • Olivia McKenna says:

            I hope she doesn’t have a romantic role. The hobbit collector toys have a picture of Tauriel and Legolas – I hope nothing happens there, Legolas is meant to be single.

  4. Fr. Nate Harburg says:

    Thank you JESUS for inspiring Tolkien (a Catholic who attended daily Mass by the way)

    • What does that have to do with anything?

      • What’s wrong with him saying that? Is expressing what he thinks infringing on others’ own bubble? Only if he is manipulating others to be him, and there was not even a hint of that in Fr. Nate’s comment.

        • ThePurpleWizard says:

          The only way Jesus inspired Tolkien is by illustrating that the masses enjoy epic fairy tales, the bible being one the most accepted.

          Its funny people will make fun of nerds who celebrate hobbit day, yet go to church every Sunday as if that practice is grounded in some form of reality. I have yet to discover a religion that is anything more than a collection of stories written by men, even though they all lay claim to higher inspiration. Every man presents their story in their own adaptation, just as Peter will do for the Hobbit.

          I do mirror the sentiments of the original post, I’m thankful for Tolkien, but I guess that’s more appropriately directed to his mother and life experiences that shaped him. Perhaps that includes the story of Jesus, but not Jesus himself.

          • Zachattax94 says:

            I agree, and, furthermore, the best creation story I have ever encountered has got to be the one presented in the Silmarillion. I mean, how much cooler can it get than the world being created by music, and discord in said music creating the evil and strife of the world. Not much.
            While I can see how this creation story does have roots in the Bible (most obviously the Discord of Melkor, the most powerful of the Ainur, is quite obviously a reference to the fall of Satan, the Lieutenant of God in the Bible), I also vastly prefer it to the Biblical story.

          • Then you’ve never read Genesis 1 and 2 and Job 38 with knowledge of what the creation looked like as God created. The angels (picture them as described by prophets who saw them – bright, wonderful, powerful) cheered as the Eternal spoke and matter came into being. And are you so foolish as to think that the Creator would not weave their sound into His creation? The heavens reverberate with the sound of creation. Astronomers have recorded it. Every Hubble picture I’ve seen shows complex beauty. The earth is the source for Tolkien’s Middle Earth and you know it’s fantasy, but you live in a world created by a Person greater than any than can be imagined. Ask archaeologists about the veracity of His Holy Bible. Try reading it with as much interest as you devour fantasy. You’ll be surprised at what you discover.

          • cant we all just… get along?

          • Tolkien would be the first to tell you that although neither of the 2 beautiful but entirely different creation myths in Genesis are factual, they, like most of the best myths and epics, are true.

            BTW Tolkien was very careful with his chronology. I cannot believe it is a coincidence that in Middle Earth the Dark Lord fell on March 25, which in the Roman Catholic liturgical year is the Feast of the Annunciation, i.e. when Jesus was incarnate into the womb of Mary. The age of man?

          • LegolasPippin says:

            I totally agree Cre8erShootr. But seriously, guys, do we have to argue over religion on a movie blog? Everyone has their own opinions and beliefs, and I personally believe in the 100% accuracy of the Bible, but I don’t believe that we should rub our religion in other people’s faces. Lets just agree to disagree and move on to the next hobbit blog post :)

          • sdhfglysdc; says:

            you are completely off and blind to scientific progress..what you call the sound of creation is radioactive waves moving across the universe since the big bang… they are the most ancient source ever found in the universe, accounting for billions of years of evolution in the universe. they could not be sounds of any of your fairy tale creations since the bible doesn’t accept anything older than some thousands of years. i am still surpised and scared that in an age of such progress and with all the material we’ve got people still nod like sheep when you read some story read in a book. i don’t understand why you don’t all go looking for the shire. it’s written in a book it’s most likely to be true isn’t it? i bet it’s somewhere near those dinosaur bones god put on earth to test us… i pity you

          • iltcbilGB14 says:

            Ditto w/ LegolasPippin & Cre8rShootr – ??? to many more of you, esp. sdhfglysdc; whom I pity – to use his words.
            1) Science is man’s observations of his physical surroundings. Did anyone observe this so-called big bang? No. Did anyone observe God as He created the universe? Yes, God did and He told us about it.
            2) Since when did an explosion ever create order?
            3) Science that has any connection to actual evidence, not just theory, actually supports Creation.
            4) Read up on the inaccuracy of carbon-14 dating past 30,000 years and how even this number is high when taking into account the earth’s decaying magnetic field, evidence galore that supports a global flood (including the fact that every culture has “folklore,” for lack of a better term, of a global flood) and how these things affect each other and interrelate.
            5) Job 40-41 speaks of creatures that sound an awful lot like dragons and dinosaurs. I believe they existed – the fossils we’ve found are not some weird test by God.
            6) It takes just as much FAITH to believe there isn’t a God as it does to believe there is one.
            I could go on and on, but really, we’re here to talk about The Hobbit.
            Speaking of which – I CANNOT WAIT till it’s out and it’s going to drive me nuts waiting for parts 2 and 3! I am, however, thrilled they split it up into 3 parts – yes, it rakes in more $$, but more importantly, it tells a more complete picture of Tolkien’s beautiful epic. Joy of joys! I wish they could’ve made LOTR into more movies for the same purpose – it was a bummer that so much of the story had to be passed over for the sake of moving the plot ahead . . . oh well, what’s done is done.
            Perhaps we can convince Peter Jackson to do some “shorts” covering the missing story lines from LOTR’s?!? One can only dream . . . . . (sigh! . . . . )

          • anironmeldiriel says:

            omg why on earth do people always find a way to link lotr and stuff to god? this site is completly irrelevent to god. on utube theres loads of stuff like this too. i belive in god, i belive in science, and i belive that lotr and god are not in any way connected apart form the fact tolkien was christian. why cant we all shut up and carry on with our lives. (dont get me wrong- i love lotr it is awesome in so many ways, i wish i could go to middle earth. ;D pj did a gr8 job on lotr- cant wait 2 c the hobbit!)

          • For the Record i have found the shire. the fact that it had the word derby in front of it is irrelevant. Whats the deal with ripping on religion guys? i personally dont believe in it but i dont throw it in your face by trying to disprove it, so just chill out get a cup of tea read the hobbit and get ready for the film!

          • Whoa. Is someone seriously suggesting that the Bible is proof that God exists? That the proof that God created the universe is that “God said so?” Talking in circles is not proof.

            And for the record, yes, JRRT was a devout Catholic, yes, he intentionally removed all DIRECT references to religion from LOTR, yes, he was influenced by old myths, yes, he intentionally wrote works intended to be a mythology for the English, and yes, he detested allegory. Read his own words, read the biographies.

          • I am a devout Christian and Tolkien fan. First, I would like to say that–having read The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion, and much of The Bible–,while Tolkien’s creation story shares similarities with that of The Bible, he did abhorred the idea of people appending any deep meaning to any of his works. Here is an excerpt from a letter Tolkien wrote to Milton Waldman in 1951:

            “But an equally basic passion of mine ab initio was for myth (not allegory!) and for fairy-story, and above all for heroic legend on the brink of fairy-tale and history, of which there is far too little in the world (accessible to me) for my appetite. I was an undergraduate before thought and experience revealed to me that these were not divergent interests – opposite poles of science and romance – but integrally related. I am not ‘learned’¹ in the matters of myth and fairy-story, however, for in such things (as far as known to me) I have always been seeking material, things of a certain tone and air, and not simple knowledge. Also – and here I hope I shall not sound absurd – I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of its own (bound up with its tongue and soil), not of the quality that I sought, and found (as an ingredient) in legends of other lands. There was Greek, and Celtic, and Romance, Germanic, Scandinavian, and Finnish (which greatly affected me); but nothing English, save impoverished chap-book stuff. Of course there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerful as it is, it is imperfectly naturalized, associated with the soil of Britain but not with English; and does not replace what I felt to be missing. For one thing its ‘faerie’ is too lavish, and fantastical, incoherent and repetitive. For another and more important thing: it is involved in, and explicitly contains the Christian religion.
            For reasons which I will not elaborate, that seems to me fatal. Myth and fairy-story must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truth (or error), but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary ‘real’ world. (I am speaking, of course, of our present situation, not of ancient, pre-Christian days. And I will not repeat what I tried to say in my essay, which you read.)”

            Tolkien obviously did not want his stories–purely for entertainment–to be translated into Bible-stories or parables. He also despised the notion that any aspect of his works were influenced by his experiences in World War II (On a side note–Tolkien didn’t like Americans very much).

            On the other matter being discussed here–of creation, science, and Christianity–, I don’t think I would have the faith to believe in something so ridiculous as the universe developing over long periods of time from an initial reaction. To me, it is ludicrous to even consider the theory that some type of particle or energy was floating around in nothingness, then randomly evolved into the universe. Now, what I have not made clear is this: I don’t think the gradual evolution from a small initial particle or energy is impossible. Only… I cannot bring myself to comprehend how that initial particle or energy first existed without being itself created by God. How far down can you go before you realize that nothingness cannot create somethingness? That initial particle or energy could not have sprung out of nothing; if something was in the nothing to make it, where did the something in the nothing come from? It’s an endless descent into answers that breed but more questioning.

            Now to explain the reasoning behind The Bible’s seven-day creation and science’s slowly-evolving creation. First, I will tell you something you may or may not have known about the book of Genesis: it was written very poetically. The Bible clearly says that God’s perception of time is different than our own:

            “For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.” Psalm 90:4(NIV)

            “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” 2 Peter 3:8(NIV)

            See, since Genesis was written poetically–therefore symbolically–and not literally, many things from it are taken wrongly. The author of Genesis–keep in mind that it was written symbolically–used the terminology of seven days and seven nights instead of the literal thousands of years, simply to retain that poetic air. I mean, who wants to read something that says, “God created the world in approximately 234,745,934,001 years.”? You can take the above verses literally as 1 day = 1000 God-years, or you can–correctly–assume that no man could accurately estimate God’s perception of time compared to our own. Thus, when The Bible says, “God’s day is a thousand years”, we can extrapolate from that statement the general inference that God’s perception of time moves faster than ours–not necessarily that exactly one thousand years is to him as exactly one day.
            Therefore, we can reasonably infer that–since Genesis is written poetically and God’s perception of time is faster than ours, but not necessarily exactly 365,000 times faster–Genesis’ seven-day creation and science’s thousands/millions/billions of years creation are one in the same, with God creating the essential resources–particles and energies–for that initial “big bang”.

            Can’t wait for The Hobbit. :)

          • Tom the archaeologist says:

            i think, iltcbilGB14, that your knowledge on radiocarbon dating is sorely lacking. As a working Archaeologist i can tell you that c-14 dating has nothing to do with the earths changing (not deteriorating) magnetic field. in fact this pattern in fluctuating magnetic field can be used to date objects. it is true that c-14 dating looses much of its acurracy after 50,000 years (depending on the technique used) but one can use methods such as dendrochrology, amino acid dating, electron spin resonace, electron luminesence and uranium series dating to accurately date certain objects back close to 200,000 years.

          • Rhys McKenzie says:

            1) Science is man’s observations of his physical surroundings. Did anyone observe this so-called big bang? No. Did anyone observe God as He created the universe? Yes, God did and He told us about it.
            2) Since when did an explosion ever create order?
            3) Science that has any connection to actual evidence, not just theory, actually supports Creation.
            4) Read up on the inaccuracy of carbon-14 dating past 30,000 years and how even this number is high when taking into account the earth’s decaying magnetic field, evidence galore that supports a global flood (including the fact that every culture has “folklore,” for lack of a better term, of a global flood) and how these things affect each other and interrelate.
            5) Job 40-41 speaks of creatures that sound an awful lot like dragons and dinosaurs. I believe they existed – the fossils we’ve found are not some weird test by God.
            6) It takes just as much FAITH to believe there isn’t a God as it does to believe there is one.

            @ iltcbilGB14

            1) No, science is a methodology we use to derive observations of our universe, not the observations themselves. Nowadays we can inquire far beyond our “physical surroundings”, as you would know if you had any understanding of geology, biology, physics or indeed any other branch of science. Many are built upon asking questions of things that cannot be directly sensed by the human body, of events that have long since passed or objects that are so distant they cannot be detected with the human eye.
            2)The Big Bang, as it is conceptualised, was not an explosion, but an expansion from a singularity.
            3)Absolutely incorrect. Incidentally, you may want to check on the meaning of the phrase “scientific theory”, because it doesn’t mean what you think it does.
            4) The age limit of C-14 dating is 58-62 thousand years, not 30 thousand. There are difficulties with using the method; the most widely understood by laypeople being the changing concentrations of C-14 in the atmosphere with time. This can be compensated for, however, using calibration curves, which are used to correct C-14 ages each time one is derived. As someone who has studied the science of geology extensively, I can tell you that you have been misinformed when it comes to evidence for Noah’s flood. Diluvianism, the postulation that geological certain phenomena can be attributed to the flood, was utterly discredited two centuries ago.
            5) Then you believe modern flora and fauna lived alongside them, I take it? In which case, where are the Cretaceous humans in the fossil record? Where are the Triassic bunnies?
            6) Agree. That’s why most intellectually honest atheists will tell you they don’t believe in a God, not that they believe there isn’t one. I would say that the evidence presented for the existence of God is not just unsatisfactory, but entirely absent, and therefore I don’t see a reason to believe. I do not rule out the possibility that beings we may consider to be gods exist.

          • it took a longer amount of time to write the hobbit then god took to create the world. thats funny. look it up, its a fact.

          • Travis Peter Jackson says:

            sdhfglysdc;
            No one really knows anything if there isn’t Divine Revelation. You can’t pretend to know what causes cosmic sounds, etc. One can explain why the sky looks blue, then be asked, but why is blue that color, and find they really answered nothing at all. One speaks of a force, then is asked, “So, what exactly is a force?”

    • That is simply not true he was raised as a Catholic, but he was heavily against putting any biblical themes in his books. He even ended his long-time friendship with C.S. Lewis, because he did that in the chronicles of narnia…
      Stop using poor old Tolkiens work for your purposes!!!

      • Or Lewis and Tolkien parted ways when Lewis married Joy Gresham. Lewis started to part ways with his Oxford group at that time.

        • iltcbilGB14 says:

          Like it or not, the fact that Tolkien was a Christian would make an indelible impression on his work, consciously or not. There are MANY parallels that can be drawn. His faith is part of who he is at his core and will naturally be alive in anything he creates from out of his heart and soul. I cannot believe that something as utterly engrossing as creating Middle Earth – it’s history, its people, languages – EVERYTHING to the level of detail Tolkien did – would not be influenced by who he is and would require anything less than his heart and soul to do what he did. This may not have been his intent, but it’s inarguably inevitable.

          • Tolkien’s Christian influences can be found in the Christ-figures of the LOTR story: Aragorn, the descendant of the kingly line (Son of David) rising to fulfill prophecy; Gandalf, who died for the sake of his friends and the greater mission, descended into the depths, and resurrected; Frodo, bearing the Ring (the sins of the world) on his body up a mountain with the intent of sacrificing himself to destroy it; even Arwen, born immortal, yet choosing to become human. There is plenty of Christian element here, of course spiced up with a lot of Norse and Celtic and other stuff because it’s sort of hard to make an action fantasy that interesting with the main characters praying and forgiving and getting martyred and stuff.

          • True – still this is only one way to interpret and even if it wasn’t that wouldn’t mean there’s any hidden axiomatic religous message in Tolkien’s texts. In other words: the fact that ‘The Hobbit’ and ‘The Lord of the Rings’ are world-famous and still popular books does in no way imply the verification of any religious thesis. So there’s no real need to prove or confute such interpretations.

    • Connecting religion to everything is unnecessary. Assuming that the bible did inspire Tolkien to write his work, it happens with tons of ancient texts. Literature from the distant past has alway had an influence on modern literature at any given time. Whether or not the subject has to do with religion is irrelevant, not to mention that most of the bible was in turn inspired by earlier myths from the classical era and others. They could have just as easily inspired Tolkien to write his book (especially considering how learned he was in these things), so you might as well thank Odin or Zeus for inspiring him. As far as I’m concerned, however, The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are the best books ever written so what inspired him is of little concern to me.

  5. Oh wow!!! So excited for December!!! Thorin really does look like I imagined he would look when I read the books…

    • iltcbilGB14 says:

      I partly agree and partly don’t – granted, it’s been a good 6 years since I read The Hobbit. :-)
      I absolutely ADORE Richard Armitage (who wouldn’t) and for the longest time had a hard time envisioning him as Thorin . . . a dwarf . . . R.A is so tall and gorgeous, pulling off royalty won’t be hard for him – he’s so regal . . .
      I have since gotten used to the idea – loving what little we’ve gotten to see of his character. When reading I always pictured Thorin as a bit older than Jackson’s creation, but I can handle that. I also have to admit I’m guilty of the stereotypical view of what a dwarf from Middle Earth “ought to” look like. He (as well as Fili and Kili) are the sexiest dwarves I’ve ever imagined possible! No arguments there. :-) I don’t mind a little eye-candy in my favorite movies – especially when it’s fortunate enough to include Richard Armitage!! :-)

      • pippastray says:

        ^ very sensible person! kili and thorin are a welcome addition to the cast. aside from their natural good looks, they also happen to be epic actors. always a bonus!

  6. hate d’être au mois de décembre!!!!!!!

  7. Cant wait!!!

  8. Thorin, Nori, Bofur, and Bifur all look ridiculous. The rest of the dwarves look excellent. Thorin is not nearly weathered enough and looks more like the sheriff of Nottingham than the heir of the lonely mountain. Nori’s hear is laughable and he looks like a Klingon. Bofur’s hat makes him look like a redneck crop-duster from the 1940s and contributes nothing. Nobody can tell what is sticking out of Bifurs head unless they look it up online (turns out to be an axe?). Its a complete distraction from an otherwise great costume. Why Peter Jackson had to make them look like Bryan David Mitchell shopping at hot-topic is beyond me.

    • You think that your critique is cute. Really, you sound pompous. They look like Peter Jackson Dwarves.

      • Wow. Thanks for putting that fool in his place.What a loser he is to thimk that he can question the might wisdon of Peter Jackson and the legions of Hobbit fans. I now love you. Thanks for dominating. And for using pompous. Fabulous word.

    • Gndlf thgutar says:

      give me the do’s do look rediculous please

    • Polleke Pap says:

      I agree with you, Gimli was much more awesome. I also fear that there will be to much focus on the dwarves, wich I considered more as background characters. Just travelling companions. But because of the fact that they will make three films out of that little book means that they will elongate everything, so that the smooth story that the Hobbit is possibly will become slow and boring. Nevertheless my expectations remain high, and I think I’ts not right to judge before you’ve seen the movie. (I’m sorry for my poor English, I speak dutch :) )

    • cantpleaseeveryone says:

      Of course! Why didn’t Peter grab a copy of Gentledwarf’s Quarterly and get some better fashion ideas? While I don’t like the idea of the King of the Longbeards having the dwarven equivalent of a five-o’clock shadow, nor do I like the idea of him looking so young despite the fact he is older than Balin, I do think everyone else’s costumes and hair look fantastic. But that’s just my humble opinion.

    • iltcbilGB14 says:

      @ Burr & cantpleaseeveryone – HA HA HA HA!! True, true – 100%.

      To a SMALL extent I agree with pcutah, some of them look a bit ridiculous – and I have to admit got a giggle from some of your descriptions (Klingon, crop-duster), the same thought has gone through my head, but come on, we’re talking about a fictional culture. Who knows what were the latest hair and fashion trends of the various sects of dwarves at that time? :-)
      I find some of the theatric licenses taken to be . . . quite theatric, but it just adds to the subtle humor of the story and the very fun, unique descriptions of the dwarves in the book.

      In the end, I think they look great (except I wish they’d made R.A. as Thorin a BIT older) – so imaginative and out of the box – a wide variety of possible dwarf culture, just like as the human race we have a very wide variety of looks – skin, hair, bone structure, “costume” . . . why shouldn’t they?

      • I, too, thought the hair and braids, especially the eyebrows braided into the hair, were ridiculous. And the axe – yikes! If you go simply by the descriptions in the book, they all had long beards. In fact, it was a matter of great pride to sport ample facial hair. Also, Thorin is described as the oldest of the company but there is no description of him, per se, except that he had an ample beard. I guess Peter Jackson used artistic license to create his dwarves.

      • We have to remember though that Jackson had to make all the dwarves unique with distinct differences so the people who have not read The Hobbit will not be confused and will be able to tell the dwarves appart more easily.

  9. Wow!!! Wonderful!!

  10. too many dwarves with short or no beards. Look at Thorin, what self respecting dwarf would have a beard that short and trimmed.

    • The long and short of it is, with 12 dwarves that have to all be instantly visually distinguishable, they appear to have needed to take the designs a ways afield. I think it was probably the right decision overall.

      • Travis Peter Jackson says:

        They could have just used the right colors, and let us get to know them as Bilbo would have to have, by gradual immersion into a company that probably all looked alike to him at first.

    • iltcbilGB14 says:

      I agree w/ both of you. From a humorous standpoint – you’re right-on, Aaron. From a practical movie-making standpoint, Stephen – ditto.

    • you know that this a work of fiction right?I LOVE the hobbit and all works from tolkien but some of you idiots post stuff that is so stupid its almost like im stuck listening to the people from “finding bigfoot” talking about there squatch encounters.

  11. Will it be out before the Mayan doomsday prediction? Cos it would be a bummer if it wasn’t!

  12. Gndlf thgutar says:

    I am again, ten years later, blown away by the beauty of NZ, it seems almost unreal itself as one of the cast mentioned, and absolutely perfect as middle earth – even its’ spot on the planet.

    • iltcbilGB14 says:

      I just sigh and dream and lose all sense of time and space when I read that . . . . . . . . NZ is beyond breathtaking and I’d move there in a heartbeat if I could. In 2005 my hubby and I had the TREMENDOUS honor of spending our honeymoon there – for 3 whole weeks – though it seemed like 3 days. We did A LOT of stuff but barely scratched the surface. We need to win the lottery so we’ve got plenty of cash to burn and take a year’s sabbatical – minimum – to traverse every inch of that place in detail – taking in everything our senses will allow . . . . . it’ll never happen. One can only dream. Speaking of which, it’s well after 1am and I need to be up at 4:30. I should get to that dreaming ASAP!

  13. I WOULD LIKE A T-SHET O THIS FILM, ONE T-SHET DIFERENTE OF ALL THE OTHERS, cOULD THE DIRECTOR GIVIE THIS ?

    THANKIU SEE YUO

    HUG HUG AND MORA HUGS

  14. whrw is this love to be found ? bob marley´s fun

  15. Jonas Jossels says:

    Where is Gandalfs staff with pipeholder? I hope it will be in the movies.

  16. I’ll need to learn all those names before the first move

  17. you are very critic. I am trust to pj

  18. Absolutely AMAZING i just watched the 3d trailer and it looks fantastic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPxVQrVtNRg&feature=player_detailpage

    • Great quality thanks for link!!

    • Yes thanks for link…< Amazing

    • iltcbilGB14 says:

      . . . the heavens parted and the angels sang . . . . “Ahhhhhhhhh . . . .” I CAN’T WAIT!!!! I’M SO EXCITED!!! I get all giddy inside every time I see pics, trailers, the video blogs . . . what a fun job!! Can you imagine having gotten to work on any of these films?!?! (LOTR’s / Hobbit) What an amazing experience (tiring, LONG hours, stress, of course, but) what an experience to treasure!!

      • Middle Earth Activist says:

        I completely agree! I wish that I could have been a part of it too!

      • I wish I could live in a hobbit-hole… I would be so happy just to see it, and these people get to go in and do everything I have dreamed about!!

  19. Its great!!!

  20. What were the inspirations for the costumes??
    the hair, beards and all, so much creativity!!
    and some of them don´t look at all like de usual dwarves!!!

    • iltcbilGB14 says:

      Tolkien, baby!! It boggles the mind the level of detail he imagined when creating Middle Earth! What an all-engrossing life’s work!! Awesome!

  21. SeanGonzalez says:

    Anyone notice that it looks so much like his son, Gimli? And the axe is the same one as Gimli used before picking up Oin’s or Balin’s in Moria?

  22. You should have a worldwide contest for the public to attend the release of the Hobbit…. Example: One from each county(10) with up to 4 family members. Thinking outside the box…love you guys.
    I’m so excited and looking forward to 12/14 I got goosebumps… :

    All the best!!!!!
    Lila

  23. time to start remembering the faces with the names. finally some new faces to remember when i start reading the book again this week.

    i just cant remember their names /sigh
    especially richard, i mean lucas north, i mean thorin. bearded men have never looked so good /lol

    • LOL, Bridget – I agree! Did you check out the photo of Kili? I never thought of any of the Tolkien dwarfs as being cute or sexy; I’m beginning to change my mind… ;~D

    • iltcbilGB14 says:

      Amen to that, ladies! I have to admit, I feel guilty thinking of Richard Armitage (and all of his amazing characters) the way I do . . . . . shame on me! Dwarves are definitely bringing sexy back!! :-) Who’d have thought??!? (NO arguments here!) sigh! . . . .

  24. E.D. Yote says:

    How does The Hobbit qualify for three films? Isn’t that milking it a bit? Perhaps Director Jackson just yearns to relive the making of LOTR in every way.

    • iltcbilGB14 says:

      I’m suprized they could narrow the story down to 3 movies!! When reading it many years ago I remember thinking “If they ever made this into a movie and included EVERYTHING, it’d be 20 hours long!!” I’m not dumb to the $$-side of things this franchise will undoubtedly be partaking in – but from pure story-telling, it’s a MINIMUM!!
      In fact, I was bummed at how much they had to cut out of LOTR’s to literally SQUEEZE it into 3 films. I was SO excited when it was released that they were going to make The Hobbit into 3 movies instead of the original 2.

  25. whats the age rating for the hobbit. i read the book and it wont be fare that its rated R. i read the book and my age is 12. so can someone tell me what age the movie is :)

    • iltcbilGB14 says:

      I’d assume it’ll end up AT LEAST at PG-13. If it’s been given a rating yet, I haven’t seen it. :-)

    • Elbereth21 says:

      It’s rated PG 13. I saw it last night – it was really good. :] I think if your parents go with you they’ll let you in younger… ;]

  26. JJ Hobbit says:

    The actor portraying Bilbo is too young in this film. I wish Ian Holm had been asked to reprise his role. For those of you who have never read The Hobbit, Bilbo was middle aged when he went on his adventure with the dwarves. After obtaining the Ring he stopped aging until he gave it to Frodo in Fellowship of the Ring. Bilbo would have appeared to be the same age in The Hobbit as he did at the beginning of Fellowship. As for the dwarves everyone pictures them differently. Peter Jackson created them the way he imagined them from the book. I believe the films will be awesome and look forward to seeing them.

    • iltcbilGB14 says:

      I thought so too – about Bilbo – at least for the most part. I’m not sure if he should’ve stopped aging all together, but he should’ve definitely slowed DRAMATICALLY. It would’ve been nice if they’d aged Martin Freeman a bit more, and honestly, “youngified” Ian Holm in LOTR’s a bit. To me, Freeman’s Bilbo seems a bit young and Holm’s Bilbo a bit too old . . . . Oh well. I’m sure I’ll love it none-the-less! :-)

    • Thats right, Bilbo was 50 as he started his first jorney, but hobbits are not gettng older on the same way like humans, Tolkien said in his book 50 years is nothing for a hobbit , 50 for a hobbit = late-adult.

      • LOTRCRAZY! says:

        Actually 50 for a hobbit is like just becoming an adult. Like being 18 or 19.

        • Actually, 33 for a hobbit is like 21 for a human, the year of “coming of age” into adulthood. So 50 for a hobbit would be the beginning of middle age, say late 30s/early 40s.

          I think Frodo looked too young in the LOTR movies, as a whole. The problem is this: Frodo starts the LOTR story as a young man coming of age at 33, but in the original story he doesn’t leave for Mordor for another 17 years, making him 50 like Bilbo in The Hobbit. This time lapse gets completely bypassed in the movie. So as a director, what do you do: make Frodo a young man to match with what he should be at the beginning, or a middle adult to match with what he should be for the Quest? Youth won out.

  27. Thorin looks like a human , not like a dwarf, dont know how it will be on a big screen in the movie but on the picture i dont like him…

  28. Can’t wait!! Brilliant cast especially Sir Ian as Gandalf and Martin as Bilbo. Oh, and I love the beards, costumes, all OF IT! Absolutely fantastic designs!

  29. dive into the amazing booklet the hobbit it has got so many amazing facts in it so feel free to read it !!!!!!!!!!!

  30. read the amazing booklet the hobit and feel free to read it as it has got loads of amazing facts in it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  31. it is seriously amazing !

  32. The Shpydar says:

    Bifur’s axe in the head really bothers me.

    I like the theory of a piece of a weapon partially embedded in the forehead of a warrior… but the placement on the forehead and the size of it, and how large it is sticking out makes it comical and not believable.

    Of all the dwarves every time I see it I think its just ridiculous, and I am worried I’m going to be staring at the axe head and not the actors performance.

  33. Kili is so cute !!! And Bombur so fun. I can’t wait to see the poor dwarves carrying him through Mirkwood !

  34. I’m a tad disappointed in Balin. I always had the impression that he was more middle aged and a contemporary of Bilbo. Hence the friendship that developed between them and the visit at the end on the book. Balin goes on to try to reclaim Moria. The Balin here looks like his next stop will be the old folks home. Don’t get me wrong, I have the utmost faith in Jackson and his ability to totally hit the home run on this. I just don’t see Balin as this old.

  35. 1. I’m so excited for these movies! xD
    2. Gandalf is the shit, as always!
    3. Bilbo is cute, as always!
    4. Fili is … hot…? Strange but I’m gonna say yes…
    5. Dwalin looks like he’d be a fan of Wolverine if he were only in the right universe
    6. Dori looks very stately
    7. Bombur is spot-on except not sure what’s up with the braid-o-hair necklace
    8. Bifur and Bofur look like a couple of scary hick cousins from backwoods Oklahoma back at home in the winter time…
    9. Gloin looks related to Gimli (yay!)
    10. Mr. Oakenshield and Kili just look like normal humans
    11. Nori what is goin’ on with your hair? (otherwise cool…)
    12. Oin looks like a B.A. frost giant about to kick some butt
    13. Ori looks… cute. Like Dopey from Snow White
    14. Balin looks like he could be playing Santa Claus in one of those low-budget Christmas movies

  36. I never have like PJ’s dwarves, but my preconceptions due to GW’s dwarves is probably the reason.. except the accent.. never have got that part..

  37. MAMA? MAMA LUIGI? HAHA!

  38. I like this character, however Gandalf is my perfect one, best and <3

  39. I love J.R.R. Tolkien and I love what Peter Johnson has done for the film adaptions of his works. I do agree with some of you that not all of the dwarfs look like dwarfs, but over all they did a good job. I can’t wait to see this in theaters.

    • Elbereth21 says:

      I found the axe in Bifur’s head less distracting in the movie than in the pictures. They’re kind of a ragtag bunch but they were entertaining. :D

  40. Awesome!!!!

  41. Hi,
    i would like to ask who is the photographer or the photographers involved in the backstage and official pictures for the movie! Amazing pictures!
    And also…who is the webdesigner of the official movie website?
    thx a lot!

  42. Love LOTR love the Hobbit :D

  43. Calilmalith says:

    I love the way the dwarves look in this film as it is closer to the source of Tolkien’s inspiration – the Norse “Poetic Edda”. Dvergar or Norse dwarves were human size and human looking. The concept of dwarves as short only dates from the 13th Century. Although Tolkien chose to make his dwarves short, there is no reason to assume that they couldn’t look like humans rather than the stereotypical dwarf most of us grew up with. As a bit of trivia, the names of all the dwarves were taken from the Dvergatal (the “Catalogue of Dwarves”) on the first poem of the “Poetic Edda”.

  44. I looked through the book for accuracy with the characters and i found that the first (Dwalin in the book) is old and has a white beard, in the movie he is portrayed as much younger with brown hair. I am sure that this means that the producers got it wrong with the costumes. Bilbo was done perfectly along with Gandalf. Over all it was a pretty good movie :)

  45. bubba jock says:

    What no Gollum?

  46. What about all the elves?

  47. L.O.L!!!

  48. I don t know why but I love hobbit and my favourite character is Bilbo Bagins

  49. intresting, because all of these comments are so long, but its all just wrecking the book for me because i just finished chapter5 and im going to watch the movie of the Hobbit tonight!

  50. KILI IS MY HUSBAND IN REAL LIFE

  51. cosplayfan says:

    Wow ! I love these characters of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey very much ! When I watch them seriously, it seems that they came to life again. You know, I want to say the characters gallery is really amazing ! I am a loyal fan of The Hobbit film. I had ever played my loved characters in my favorite The Hobbit Cosplay ! Thanks to my most loved two online stores-Fandomsky and Moviescostume, I got a lot of compliments. I believe you will love them, too.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. In Just 3 Months… « Acts Of The Apostasy - [...] at The Hobbit Blog, character stills of Bilbo, Gandalf and Thorin’s company of dwarves have been posted.  Here [...]
  2. Sequel Bits: ‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey,’ ‘Fast and Furious 6′, ‘Scary Movie 5,’ ‘Beetlejuice 2,’ ‘The Hangover Part III,’ ‘Atlas Shrugged Part 2′ | Music Movie Magic - [...] it probably didn’t hurt that The Hobbit Blog posted a character gallery for you to acquaint yourself with. Obviously ...
  3. The Hobbit – New Trailers and Interactive Fun - [...] there is a Hobbit Blog with news from the movie team and it is currently highlighting a delightful gallery ...
  4. Neue Bilder von Wargen, Orks und Zauberern. - Hobbit, Herr der Ringe Film und Mittelerde - Tolkiens-Welt.de - [...] Von den Zwergen sind schon einige Bilder erschienen. Um sich einen guten Eindruck der Charackter zu verschaffen empfehle ich ...
  5. The Hobbit (part 1) - [...] Entries2 Character Gallery: http://www.thehobbitblog.com/the-hob...acter-gallery/ Crivens! ...

Leave a Reply