Jump to content
Hondo's Bar

The Hobbit


Recommended Posts

Well then, I hope Peter Jackson continues and gets this done already :duh:

 

header_cnn_com_logo.gif

 

McKellen Hoping to Play Gandalf in The Hobbit

 

WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) -- Ian McKellen, who played Gandalf the Wizard in the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, is hoping to reprise the role in another tale from Middle Earth.

A fan asked McKellen on the actor's official Web site if he would play the role of Gandalf in "The Hobbit," which is being produced by Peter Jackson, director of the "Rings" trilogy.

 

"Yes, I will, if Peter Jackson and I have anything to do with it, he being the producer and me being, on the whole, a very lucky actor," McKellen, 68, said in a reply dated Wednesday.

 

Jackson reached a deal with New Line Cinema late last year to make two films of J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Hobbit," a planned prequel to the blockbuster "Rings" trilogy. Jackson will serve as executive producer for the "The Hobbit" movies.

 

Another fan asked: "Have you been approached yet by Peter Jackson or anyone else" to play the ancient Wizard?"

 

McKellen replied: "Encouragingly, Peter and (partner) Fran Walsh have told me they couldn't imagine `The Hobbit' without their original Gandalf."

---------------------------------------***----------------------------------------

 

according to E! back in December of '07, Peter Jackson is back to make The Hobbit (link), which is GREAT news, but I'm curious as to how they're going to make it two part. The Hobbit is small enough in terms of book volume to fit into one movie, so I'm not quite sure how they would split it up.

 

Estimated release dates are 2010 and 2011, according to The Times

 

Thoughts?

Edited by archangel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Huh. Thought Peter Jackson wasn't going to do this, due to a disagreement with New Line over profits.

 

If he does do this, great! I can see this getting split into two movies. It was one (relatively small) book, but I think there's enough material to make two good movies out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay I thought Guillermo Del Toro was directing this? And I was excited because his directing style fits the whole dark fairytale style of the Hobbit much better. There were parts of the Hobbit that were genuinely scary which is why I want an entirely different Gollum this time around, that and I'm still praying for Warwick Davis as Bilbo.

 

As for how Jackson would split the two movies, you're forgetting that this is the man who made a 3+ hour movie out of King fucking Kong and then had the balls to release an "Extended Edition" months later.

Edited by Iambaytor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. This way there'll be less chance of those "lesser characters" being left out this time around. Guillermo Del Toro would do a decent job I'm sure, but Peter Jackson's who I hope will direct. He's got the backing of the actors of the previous movies (which I know Probably won't be appearing other than Gandalf), and Let's face it: to the public, he's probably considered the face of Tolkien Movie adaptations. Get anyone else to direct, and it probably won't do as well.

 

I really hope they get all of this taken care of before their rights to this expire and revert to the Tolkien estate. They're not likely to allow further movie adaption for another generation or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LotR too epic? It's an epic story in every way, Ross. The reason Jackson's adaptation did so well was due to the fact that he did a very good job of sticking to the story and the characters as they were written and didn't go changing much (except for whatever needed to be changed for Film instead of print).

 

LotR is an epic story, especially in the literary sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not attacking, just pointing things out.

 

I found the Odyssey to be dull after reading the Iliad, but that doesn't make it any less an epic. The point here is that the terminology you're using is incorrect, NOT what your interpretation or your opinion of the work is. Whether or not I like Milton's Paradise Lost doesn't effect it's status as an epic. It's still an epic. The fact that, in modern times, it's being put on the list of the Western Canon is proof enough.

 

see what I mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no, its not incorrect, its depicting my opinion, which i believe to be true.... the fact that every time i thought it could have gotten epic, tolkien decided to get overly elaborite with the amount of depth he put into the writing

 

the fuck is western canon

Edited by the division of joy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

not attacking, just pointing things out.

 

I found the Odyssey to be dull after reading the Iliad, but that doesn't make it any less an epic. The point here is that the terminology you're using is incorrect, NOT what your interpretation or your opinion of the work is. Whether or not I like Milton's Paradise Lost doesn't effect it's status as an epic. It's still an epic. The fact that, in modern times, it's being put on the list of the Western Canon is proof enough.

 

see what I mean?

Really? I preferred the Odyssey over the Iliad. But then, I read the Odyssey first. Felt the Iliad was a little bit long-winded.

 

the fuck is western canon

"The Western canon is a term used to denote a canon of books, and, more widely, music and art, that has been the most influential in shaping Western culture."

Edited by Lycaon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ross, you're mistaking the premise of the word 'epic'. A piece is an 'epic' irrespective of subjective taste: whether or not you like doesn't make it any less so. Hence my example: The Odyssey is an Epic by Homer, whether I liked it or not.

 

Definitions are not subject to subjective opinion.

Edited by archangel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol I GET that part, Susan. What YOU are failing to understand is that your opinion on it doesn't make it any less so as far as definitions are concerned. I can call the Sun a planet till I'm blue in the face, it doesn't make it one.

 

You're confusing stated facts for opinion and interchanging them at will. Whether or not you, or I, or anyone likes or feels that the Lord of the Rings is an epic is irrelevant to the FACT that it's literary style MAKES it one.

 

It's kinda like poetry, like it or not, it's still a poem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

im not failing to understand anything, i know its regarded as epic, i just dont feel it as so, i found it slightly overblown and over the top, kinda like pirates

See, it seems like you are (at least using this post as an example) using the term epic like a quality rather than a genre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, arch, the definition is not subjective, but whether it qualifies can be, because the quality of being an epic comes in degrees and there is a subjective threshold a story must pass to be epic. Certain things like whether an integer is even, or whether a woman is pregnant, are boolean with nothing between true and false.

 

How funny does something have to be to be a comedy? Is Romeo and Juliet a comedy? I've read it as such, and can you objectively refute me? How long does a story have to be to be a story? Ernest Hemingway won a $10 bet that he could write a 6-word story ("For Sale: Baby shoes, never worn."). But is it really a story? It's kind of subjective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a 'comedy' has nothing to do with humor, Jax (at least as far as Shakespear is concerned). Romeo and Juliet is a drama in the literary sense of the word, whether or not you find it funny.

 

but whether it qualifies can be

good argument, but even then, it doesn't stop it from being.

 

Again: I don't like Modern Art. I think it's bullshit that a five year old can do which lacks any real substance and, most importantly, artistic skill. I honest to Christ consider it a pile of garbage which should be recycled and used for something productive and not litter the space at FIU. However, my feelings and subjective opinion means nothing: they are still art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BEGONE WITH DEBATING WITCHERY! This is movies Gorram it!

 

And I don't fucking care about semantics, Ross is right. The Lord of the Rings may have been a big epic war filled journey, but The Hobbit was an adventure, it was a fairy tale, it was what The Neverending Story and Willow were trying to be. It's a story for the child in all of us, a simple adventure with a simple character we can all relate to. Bilbo, unlike Frodo, was relatively unspectacular, he was weak and cowardly and had no reason like a heroic uncle to press on, but he became a hero. It wasn't about epics battles and war and big fight scenes, sure there were battles but Bilbo usually wasn't present for them.

 

Also Bilbo was depicted as relatively young in the Hobbit, about Frodo's age at the beginning of The Fellowship of the Rings, so I think they would need to use a different actor and the only other actor I would think they would bring back would be Ian McKellen none of the others are to be used. And as I said, we need a different Gollum, his introduction was one of the most creepy and terrifying sequences in the book, he needs to be more creepy and monster like and less like a homeless kid with a speech impediment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I have my opinion on what science fiction means as a genre.

 

From Dictionary.com:

Science Fiction: a form of fiction that draws imaginatively on scientific knowledge and speculation in its plot, setting, theme, etc.

 

I think it's not enough for a piece of fiction to be set in outer space to be a whole separate genre. Disney's Treasure Planet is just Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island set in outer space (with Disney's other trademark Disneyfication of classic literature). I think that science has to be critical to the plot or theme. HG Wells' Time Machine has the 'scientific speculation' (or time travel) at the core of it's plot. You can set it in 19th century England, 21st century India, at the bottom of the sea, on another planet, that core has to remain or it's not the same story anymore. Setting is not enough to make a story belong to a certain genre. IN MY OPINION.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all fine and dandy: except Ross was talking about The Lord of the Rings, NOT the Hobbit.

 

Nice try, though:)

 

and yet your opinion (jax), in the end, doesn't amount to shit on a stick when it comes to the accepted definition of what it actually is.Again: Modern Art being Art etc

Edited by archangel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also Bilbo was depicted as relatively young in the Hobbit, about Frodo's age at the beginning of The Fellowship of the Rings, so I think they would need to use a different actor

He didn't age from the moment he got the ring at the end of The Hobbit, so unless this movie gets delayed a few more decades, with some make up, he can pull it off.

a 'comedy' has nothing to do with humor, Jax (at least as far as Shakespear is concerned). Romeo and Juliet is a drama in the literary sense of the word, whether or not you find it funny.

Drama is not the opposite of Comedy. Tragedy is. Most Shakespearean scholars call Romeo and Juliet a tragedy, but it is a matter of debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...