Gandalf in "The Hobbit" has been cast!

Uncle Yuan · December 18, 2007, 11:02:33 AM

Peter Jackson has just settled his suit against New Line/MGM and has joined the production team for the Hobbit. There's still no word on a director yet, but I, for one, am very glad that he'll have a hand in the movies.

clicky

TheMarvell · December 18, 2007, 11:09:11 AM

this is good news, but

a) why isn't PJ directing it?
and
b) why are they splitting it into two movies?

B A D · December 18, 2007, 11:33:14 AM

a) PJ will prolly wind up directing it. Im sure thats gonna shake out.

b ) Don't know, don't care. PJ and co. have a HUGE cache of good will (with me, anyway) built up from the LOTR, and if he wants to make two movies and then make us soak our feet in jello while watching em, Ill gladly ask for lime.

Seriously, thinks about it. If he leaves us off in Mirkwood, It gives us time to flesh out the backstory, (Thorin and Co) and then plenty of time for Tharundil, the spiders, Laketown , Smaug (!!!) and the climatic battle. Even if it ends with our friends in the barrels, thats a good enough spot for me.

More importantly, are our iconic cast members (Elrond, Gandalf) on board with this, and WHO will play Bilbo? Zod bless Ian Holm, but he's a wee bit too old for the part now.

Uncle Yuan · December 18, 2007, 12:21:12 PM

and b) twice as much money from two movies at something like one-and-a-half times the production cost by doing it as a two-fer.

TheMarvell · December 19, 2007, 09:00:29 AM

well, if he thinks he has to do 2 movies to do the movie justice, then I'm all for it. I just hope he isn't making it into two movies just to be a cash-cow and fills them up with action fodder (despite it probably being awesomely entertaining action fodder, but that's besides the point).

as for Bilbo, with digital technology, they can use Ian Holm and digitally make him look younger. Hell, they did it in the original LOTR movies. He actually looks much older than he does in Fellowship. Just watch The Day After Tomorrow (...actually, DON'T watch that. It's a terrible movie, but he looks like himself in that one, lol)

OutsiderNo11 · December 19, 2007, 11:12:50 AM

Quote from: B A D on December 18, 2007, 11:33:14 AM
More importantly, are our iconic cast members (Elrond, Gandalf) on board with this, and WHO will play Bilbo? Zod bless Ian Holm, but he's a wee bit too old for the part now.

Ian Holm was pretty old when he did Jackson's trilogy. But his portrayal of Bilbo, especially during his 111th birthday party, was spot on. Remember too, that in Jackson trilogy, Gandalf states that Bilbo hasn't aged a day since their adventure to the Lonely Mountain.

I'm wondering if they will have Beorn in this set. They are certainly considering two movies based on the novel and Beorn plays a very significant role in the end, as I recall.

They could also have some filler with Gandalf and the White Council casting Sauron (known as the Necromancer and one obscure reference as Master in the novel) out of his stronghold near Mirkwood.

Lastly, will they be portraying the same effects they used when Frodo put on the ring? It wouldn't make sense if Sauron suddenly sees Bilbo, would it?

MJB · December 19, 2007, 02:18:54 PM

I hope Jackson gets to direct this. It just wouldn't be the same without the Jackson/Weta team.

-MJB

catwhowalksbyhimself · December 19, 2007, 03:08:38 PM

If I remember right, Bilbo was in his fifties during his adventure, so I don't see much of a problem here.

BentonGrey · December 19, 2007, 08:52:07 PM

Jackson used up every shred of good will he had garnered with me in the first two films in that train wreck that was Return of the King. It failed as an adaptation, and it was lack luster as a movie in its own right. However......I don't feel nearly as strongly about the Hobbit as I do the others...and I feel like it would be harder for him to screw up when his "vision" becomes more important than the text.

Jakew · December 19, 2007, 10:33:55 PM

I'd really like to see Ian Holm in the role. He was great as Bilbo. No-one ever seems to mention that Ian McKellen is also going to pretty old when he has to reprise the role Gandalf ... and that is a way more action-oriented role in The Hobbit compared to Bilbo, in terms of fighting and whatnot.

I wonder if they can get Jonathan Rys-Davies (sp?) onboard as one of the dwarves? After all, they're supposed to look quite similar. Just change his beard colour and he can be Gimli's ancestor.

catwhowalksbyhimself · December 20, 2007, 05:17:22 AM

QuoteJackson used up every shred of good will he had garnered with me in the first two films in that train wreck that was Return of the King.

I thought it was the best of the three. So did most people that I know.

QuoteI wonder if they can get Jonathan Rys-Davies (sp?) onboard as one of the dwarves? After all, they're supposed to look quite similar. Just change his beard colour and he can be Gimli's ancestor.

His father, you mean. Who appeared in the Fellowship, by the way, if only briefly, and as an old dwarf.

Uncle Yuan · December 20, 2007, 06:21:49 AM

Quote from: BentonGrey on December 19, 2007, 08:52:07 PM
Jackson used up every shred of good will he had garnered with me in the first two films in that train wreck that was Return of the King. It failed as an adaptation, and it was lack luster as a movie in its own right. However......I don't feel nearly as strongly about the Hobbit as I do the others...and I feel like it would be harder for him to screw up when his "vision" becomes more important than the text.

My, aren't we the Grumpy Movie Go-er? Is there a sci-fi/fantasy/comic movie in the last three years you did like? :lol: (Although Dark Knight hasn't been released yet, so I suppose we can't officially put that on your humbug list . . . ;) )

Alaric · December 20, 2007, 07:47:40 AM

Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on December 20, 2007, 05:17:22 AM
QuoteJackson used up every shred of good will he had garnered with me in the first two films in that train wreck that was Return of the King.

I thought it was the best of the three. So did most people that I know.

It's funny- I thought the first was the best, and the second was the worst- and so did most people I know- at least, the ones who had read the books. The ones who hadn't generally had exactly the opposite view.

BentonGrey · December 20, 2007, 08:59:24 AM

Quote from: Uncle Yuan on December 20, 2007, 06:21:49 AM
My, aren't we the Grumpy Movie Go-er? Is there a sci-fi/fantasy/comic movie in the last three years you did like? :lol: (Although Dark Knight hasn't been released yet, so I suppose we can't officially put that on your humbug list . . . ;) )

Well, yeah, there's been tons of movies I loved. I loved the other two LOTR movies, I loved all the spider-man movies, I loved Batman Begins, the first two X-Men movies, etc, etc, etc. I've never said I was upset about DK in general, just the Joker. I've stated repeatedly that I've still got a lot of hope for the film itself, and that I'm still really excited to see it.

Cat, most people I know (most of whom haven't read the books) weren't really impressed with the last one, but that mostly had to do with the 'ghost army' thing. Those of us who HAD read the books were just befuddled by a lot of the changes that Jackson made. I mean, in the first two films, I pretty much understand all of the things he changed or left out, but in RotK we were just baffled. What bothers me most is the portrayal the Steward of Gondor as nothing more than a deranged old man who Gandalf 'put out of his misery.'

Alaric, you really thought the second was the worst? Why? Was it because of Theoden's portrayal as weak?

stumpy · December 20, 2007, 09:12:59 AM

BentonGrey, I wonder which criticisms you have of LotR:RotK. I have some, too, but they are generally pretty mild. I have read the books (and re-read them between the 2nd and 3rd movies) and I generally felt OK about the changes Jackson made in the movies. Some of the changes he considered making would have been disastrous, IMO, but the ones that made it into the final film (or extended versions, which are what I own) were fine. Anyway, just curious...

B A D · December 20, 2007, 11:24:23 AM

Yah, I can see JRD playing Gloin, but he didn't have much of a role in the book other than getting smacked around by trolls, spiders, and elves.

Thorin would be the most prominent role, followed by Balin, Big ol Bombur and maybe Fili and Kili.

Beorn would be fun role to play. As would Bard.

Uncle Yuan · December 20, 2007, 02:41:28 PM

Quote from: BentonGrey on December 20, 2007, 08:59:24 AM
Well, yeah, there's been tons of movies I loved. I loved the other two LOTR movies, I loved all the spider-man movies, I loved Batman Begins, the first two X-Men movies, etc, etc, etc. I've never said I was upset about DK in general, just the Joker. I've stated repeatedly that I've still got a lot of hope for the film itself, and that I'm still really excited to see it.

While I thought the 3rd Spider-man was extremely mediocre, so I guess we balance each other out . . .

TheMarvell · December 20, 2007, 02:43:41 PM

I haven't ever read the LotR books, but I always thought it was a huge mistake and really stupid that they left out Sarumon's death in the theatrical cut. It's basically the ONLY reason why I bought the extended versions of the films on DVD. Really, I don't blame Christopher Lee for being angry at PJ over this. He was a fairly major villain in the first two films and then no, or very VERY little, resolution in part 3? The movie was long enough as it is, so what was the point in cutting out his death?

However, that being said, even though I didn't read the books, I do know how Sarumon originally died in the books and I really wish that would have made it into the movie. A lot of fans make huge deals out of really trivial changes or additions, but I feel the change in Sarumon's death was a legit one.

Regardless though, I think the LOTR trilogy is fantastic, even though if you're going to watch them, you might as well make a day out of it, lol. As long as the Hobbit feels part of the universe PJ made with the other movies, I'll totally see it and probably like it.

I also like Kevin Smith's super simplistic critique of the movies. If you've ever seen "An Evening with Kevin Smith" or "Clerks II" you know what I'm talking about.

BWPS · December 20, 2007, 03:11:56 PM

2 MOVIES? Are these going to be two in the Peter Jackson style of 3 hour+ movies??!?! That's 6 hours! The only one I've stayed awake for the whole thing of is Two Towers (my favorite). Even that suffered from being too long. And how did he manage to make a King Kong movie 3 hours long? I'd prefer it to be a singleton movie, but I am glad to finally see it. The Hobbit has always been better to me than the Rings. I had less of that chore feeling (which is boring but acceptable for books and not ever good for movies) when I was reading it.

Man, I'm terrible. I complain about LotR being too long. Then I go to see Golden Compass and freak out about how short it is due to them completely removing the end.

catwhowalksbyhimself · December 20, 2007, 03:54:56 PM

QuoteCat, most people I know (most of whom haven't read the books) weren't really impressed with the last one, but that mostly had to do with the 'ghost army' thing. Those of us who HAD read the books were just befuddled by a lot of the changes that Jackson made. I mean, in the first two films, I pretty much understand all of the things he changed or left out, but in RotK we were just baffled. What bothers me most is the portrayal the Steward of Gondor as nothing more than a deranged old man who Gandalf 'put out of his misery.'

But there WAS ghost army in the book, and they are crucial to the plot. I liked what they did with it.

And he definitely DID NOT portray the Stewart as just a deranged old man put out of his misery. There's more to that. Yes, he is a deranged, insane old guy, but that was true in the book as well.

So far, you have yet to cite any changes, and I thought both of those things were done very well.

OutsiderNo11 · December 21, 2007, 07:42:28 AM

Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on December 20, 2007, 03:54:56 PM
QuoteCat, most people I know (most of whom haven't read the books) weren't really impressed with the last one, but that mostly had to do with the 'ghost army' thing. Those of us who HAD read the books were just befuddled by a lot of the changes that Jackson made. I mean, in the first two films, I pretty much understand all of the things he changed or left out, but in RotK we were just baffled. What bothers me most is the portrayal the Steward of Gondor as nothing more than a deranged old man who Gandalf 'put out of his misery.'

But there WAS ghost army in the book, and they are crucial to the plot. I liked what they did with it.

And he definitely DID NOT portray the Stewart as just a deranged old man put out of his misery. There's more to that. Yes, he is a deranged, insane old guy, but that was true in the book as well.

So far, you have yet to cite any changes, and I thought both of those things were done very well.

In the book, Denethor actually kept the defenses of Gondor maintained, lit the beacons, and never ordered his men to flee the city. He only fell into madness when he saw Faramir gravely wounded, believing him to be dead. He was a very capable leader in the books and this wasn't how he was portrayed in the movie.

B A D · December 21, 2007, 10:45:07 AM

Yes. The only reason why he was despairing at all was the machinations of Sauron by the things he saw through the Palantir.

Denethor was depicted in the book as almost Wizardlike in knowledge, and that lead to his downfall.

TheMarvell · February 01, 2008, 10:48:31 PM

Guillermo Del Toro (Hellboy, Pan's Labyrinth) is going to be the director of the Hobbit films:

http://movies.ign.com/articles/849/849112p1.html

Personally, I think he's a great choice (certainly better than Sam Raimi. I like Raimi and all, but I doubt his style would fit LotR), but I am still a little disappointed and confused as to why PJ doesn't just direct it himself. I mean, he's the next best thing (executive producer) so why not just step up a little and direct again? Eh, I like del Toro though.

MJB · February 02, 2008, 12:41:56 AM

I too am confused why Jackson isn't directing.

-MJB

Figure Fan · February 02, 2008, 08:26:21 AM

I'm still stunned by the fact that somebody liked Spider-Man 3.. :blink:

Maybe I just needed a barf bag to complete the experience..

So much for Sam Raimi directing the Hobbit? Guillermo Del Toro is becoming the go-to-guy for these fantasy flicks. Still, after Pan's Labrynth, I can see why.

B A D · February 08, 2008, 12:25:40 PM

Its a good choice. Although I would have preferred PJ at the helm.

Uncle Yuan · April 30, 2008, 10:45:58 AM

New news: Gandalf will be played by McKellen!

Yay! :thumbup:

B A D · April 30, 2008, 10:50:22 AM

I am now filled with SQEEEEEE

Glitch Girl · April 30, 2008, 10:56:46 AM

EXcellent! (rubs hands gleefully)

catwhowalksbyhimself · April 30, 2008, 10:59:48 AM

I had heard a bit ago that yet another lawsuit was holding things up, but it looks like that's been taken care of already. Good to see that we'll be getting the Hobbit done, although I don't see why they need two movies, other than the ability to squeeze more cash out of it, which is likely the real reason. At any rate, I'm sure I'll still like it. With Voyage of the Dawn Treader and Hobbit both coming out in 2010, it will be a good year for fantasy movies. Unless of course, the Narnia movies get pushed back AGAIN!