McKellen To Follow Del Toro? [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

PrinceOfTheHalflings

07-08-2010, 04:38 PM

The main problem with that report is that it says that David Yates will be directing. Mr Yates denied that (nearly a month ago) and as well we all know Peter Jackson is now slated to direct. So ... it's hard to take a report seriously when they get such basic facts wrong.

Anyway I'm sure that McKellan is free to do other things while he's waiting. His situation is quite different to Del Toro, who was part of the production team and also one of the writers. McKellan is only required if (and when) the cameras start filming.

Mister Underhill

07-08-2010, 05:48 PM

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing as the Prince there -- the reporting in that piece seemed to be pretty ill-informed all the way round.

I highly doubt McKellan would prefer retirement to one last Middle-earth adventure. He seems to have enjoyed the first one so much. The factor with him is, obviously, that he's not getting any younger. But I doubt he'd even have to work all that hard on the picture, depending on how much White Council stuff they work in there. After all, Gandalf disappears for a large-ish chunk of the story.

Inziladun

07-08-2010, 05:56 PM

Morthoron

07-08-2010, 06:50 PM

Morsul the Dark

07-08-2010, 08:57 PM

Negative Negative Negative....

So the movies didn't follow Every Single word in the book so they had to take certain creative leaps for the movie...

A "Travesty" is a far far overreaction to the idea of a film.

now on to the story. If they change Mckellen cancel the movie he was one of two(the other being Sean Astin) to get his part right.

Morthoron

07-08-2010, 09:37 PM

Negative Negative Negative....

So the movies didn't follow Every Single word in the book so they had to take certain creative leaps for the movie...

Nonsense Nonsense Nonsense...

I don't believe any logical poster here expected a movie wherein every line was repeated like biblical text. I, myself, would call out anyone for making such an inane comment.

However, when you say 'they had to take certain leaps', that seems to be merely apologist flimflammery -- a sycophantic genuflection to weak revisionism. There was much that was haphazardly tossed in that was not even germane to the stilted plot jury-rigged atop the original storyline. Many of the film sequences were unnecessary, irrelevant and inherently flawed. Just because someone stamps 'Middle-earth' on something doesn't mean I have to get all goose-pimply and bow to the maker of the product.

P.S. And it is a 'travesty' the way The Hobbit has been handled, by all and sundry. Del Toro leaving so abruptly tells me all I need to know about the manner in which the film is being tossed about like it was a porcupine with flatulence.

Morsul the Dark

07-08-2010, 09:41 PM

Never said you had too... Just pointing out a Film maker has to appeal to a broader audience than just those who read the book. And while not "Canon" I feel you can enjoy the films without dissecting it.

Mister Underhill

07-08-2010, 10:17 PM

The news probably should be treated with a grain of salt, but I would think it likely there is a least a kernal of truth in it, that McKellan is dissatisfied.

Here (http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2010/07/06/is-the-hobbit-in-danger-of-losing-ian-mckellen/) is another source for the same story.Aaanyway... I don't doubt that McKellan is eager to play Gandalf and impatient with the delays. But the idea that he'd walk from the project altogether? I doubt it. He's a bit of a wild-card too, isn't he? Wasn't he the one who made some announcement about a start date a few months ago that the Jackson camp then had to walk back?

Despite the "all is well" PR, one gets the impression that they've been trying to get this thing out of the gate for months now, but that MGM's financial trouble has kept it stalled. I'm sure it's annoying, but I think McKellan is just venting.

Nerwen

07-08-2010, 11:19 PM

They should just sack Ian McKellen and use that replacement wizard from Harry Potter, what's his name, Micheal Gambon? Hey, he's already replaced Richard Harris, so what's another white-bearded, muttering wizard, more or less.

The movie will be a travesty anyway. :mad:
Well, let's hope not.

However, aside from money and personality clashes, etc. there is a fundamental problem with doing the The Hobbit as (to quote the article) "the newest installation of Lord of the Rings". Really, they can either make it fit the tone of the existing films OR do a faithful adaptation. Not both. Either way, a lot of people are going to be disappointed.

Now what it seems we're going to get is another "kidult" adaptation, and the trouble is, I think that particular fashion is likely to play itself out long before the "The Hobbit" gets released. On the other hand, if they were to do it as a children's film– well, can you imagine the reaction from the movies' existing fanbase?

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is, maybe the underlying reason for all these delays and shenanigans is that the filmmakers are finding themselves in a bit of a double-bind. It's just a thought.

LadyBrooke

07-13-2010, 10:53 PM

I think he'll stay. While he may be exasperated with the film makers he has to know that if he drops out it would break some fans hearts. :(

What worries me is that according to some articles the White Council is going to be shown on screen. We know the Saruman, Galadriel, Cirdan, and Elrond were on it with Gandalf. Since five people would be pretty small for a council, it's been speculated about who else is on it. I've heard Gildor, Glorfindel, Erestor, Celeborn, Thranduil, Galdorn, and Radagast all speculated as possible members. While for most of those it would be no problem because they weren't in the first movies in any recognizable form (trading cards don't count) Saruman, Galadriel, Elrond, and Celeborn all represent problems.

Galadriel played by Cate Blanchett could still pull off the eternally youthful elf. So, unless the movies are delayed for another decade, it's not a big problem.

Celeborn: Okay, I had trouble believing Marton Csokas as an elf lord in the Fellowship of the Ring. I sincerly doubt that now that he is a decade older (he'll be 46 in 2012) I could believe him as an elf.

Elrond: Hugo Weaving is 50 this year. He looked too old for Elrond in Lord of the Rings. Now he would look way too old.

Saruman: Christopher Lee is 88. While he is still filming movies, there is going to come a time when he isn't able to film any more.

Quite frankly if they don't start filming soon they're going to have to find a completely new cast because all the original actors will be too old.

PrinceOfTheHalflings

07-14-2010, 09:44 AM

I think he'll stay. While he may be exasperated with the film makers he has to know that if he drops out it would break some fans hearts. :(

I am absolutely certain that he is extremely frustrated with the delays. However, I doubt that he'd just abandon the entire project because of that, so yes, I agree.

They could probably do a little makeup trickery to make Hugo Weaving look a little younger for Elrond. He's not in the film that much anyway. I'd imagine that Celeborn would get minimal screen time, if at all. The tricky one is definitely going to be Saruman. However, since they're going to have to cast a new Bilbo anyway, I suppose they can get a new Saruman too.

LadyBrooke

07-14-2010, 10:03 AM

They could get a new actor to play Saruman but, to me, Christopher Lee is Saruman. I can't imagine any one playing him better. Plus, he is a Tolkien fan. I think movies are better when the actor genuinely enjoys the story being told.

Morthoron

07-14-2010, 07:44 PM

If they wait much longer with The Hobbit, most of the original cast will be dead from old age.

LadyBrooke

07-14-2010, 10:24 PM

Not dead just senile. Come on folks, we can see Agent Elrond chase dwarfs off his lawn while hitting them with a cane. Or Celeborn going, "In my day we didn't have a pansy dark lord. No siree, we had the real *beep*ing deal. Morgoth was his *beep*ing name. And we had no help from these *beep* Maiar just Melian. And then those *beep*ing Noldor had to come over here with their *beep* jewels and kill half of our *beep* country. " And Orlando can play Thranduil and we find out that he's having an affair with Galadriel who is fed up with Celeborn and has decided to get herself a boy toy. ;)

And then the ghost of Tolkien will come and kill everybody connected to the movie. :eek:

Blind Guardian

07-14-2010, 10:45 PM

Tuor in Gondolin

07-15-2010, 12:45 PM

Didn't Christopher Lee part on less then warm terms
with PJ and friends? But he could handle a role that
could all be done sitting down at the Council, unless
of course PJ wants Gandalf and him to fly around
attacking various nazgul with their staffs. :rolleyes:

I would also think a few dunadain should be at the council.
Perhaps Strider's father or granddad.

LadyBrooke

07-16-2010, 12:18 AM

It's PJ. He probably wants Gandalf and Saruman to attack orcs like Saruman and Gandalf's fight while legions of elf warriors fight off orcs in the back ground. :rolleyes:

Tolkien = more description, less battle

PJ = What do you mean the original Helm's Deep didn't have elves there and was a very small percent of the book?

Edit: Hope this isn't against any rules. Used the idea about senile actors on my livejournal, http://brookeoflorien.livejournal.com/

deagol

07-21-2010, 07:46 AM

Judging by the tone of most of these posts, this is rather interesting discussion about a movie that might not get made that most of you don't want to watch even if it does.

:p

Eönwë

07-21-2010, 08:04 AM

Judging by the tone of most of these posts, this is rather interesting discussion about a movie that might not get made that most of you don't want to watch even if it does.

I suspect that however much they complain here, most people on this thread (and the entire forum, for that matter) will go out and watch the films, just as they did with LOTR.

Tuor in Gondolin

07-21-2010, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by Eonwe
I suspect that however much they complain here, most people on this thread (and the entire forum, for that matter) will go out and watch the films, just as they did with LOTR.

Yep. And probably buy the dvd, even though the only one I can
rewatch is FoTR. The other two, while cinematically well done...:rolleyes:

LadyBrooke

07-21-2010, 09:49 PM

I'll go see it when it comes out if for no other reason than the fact that it is one of the few movies that my step-dad and I can agree we both would like. However due to all the delays I don't think I'll be able to see it with him or my friends because I'll be leaving for college in a year. :(

My main problems with the movies is the casting, directing, and wardrobe decisions for the elves. When I think of elves I picture somebody young looking but in the case of the older elves wise and the younger ones lighthearted. However I felt that by making Elrond hate men and consider them weak, Legolas act like Captain Obvious, and whatever in the world they did to Celeborn's wig and speech habits, they managed to ruin what could have been some of the most interesting characters in the movie.

doug*platypus

08-14-2010, 02:19 AM

A very brief, and not so informative article! I tend to agree with previous posters that it doesn't fill me with faith in the information provided. David Yates directed only two out of six of the Potter films, and as for Sir Ian making a new name for himself with the LOTR movies! He's had a long and distinguished career, and as brilliant as he was as Gandalf (one of the few characters who I thought were done really well), he'd already made quite a name for himself apart from the movies. It would be a shame for the movie and for the fans if he did pull out, but on the off chance it actually does get finished one day, I'll still go and see it with my son now he's nearly finished reading the book. :)

PrinceOfTheHalflings

08-14-2010, 02:17 PM

Judging by the tone of most of these posts, this is rather interesting discussion about a movie that might not get made that most of you don't want to watch even if it does.

:p

Well played sir! I award thee 10 internet points. ;)

Peter Jackson's films are quite well made - especially compared to anything by Uwe Boll or even Michael Bay! To be sure, I don't agree with some of his decisions in terms of plot or characterisation or tone - but the films could have been much, much, much, much, much, worse. That being said, I do deplore some of his decisions - especially daffy Denethor, deus ex machina Army of the Dead and increasingly one dimensional and then suddenly dead Saruman.

narfforc

08-17-2010, 09:40 AM

Judging by the tone of most of these posts, this is rather interesting discussion about a movie that might not get made that most of you don't want to watch even if it does.

:p

I think most will watch it, as with The Lord of the Rings. I have all the released DVD versions, and watch them from time to time. They are good for what they are, that is to say, a brief glimpse through the window into Middle-earth.These films are not really made for the likes of us. It is not the things that Jackson leaves out that bothers me, it is the things he puts in. He seems to think he can better the skill of a Master Story-teller, in some sense maybe he can, for his versions are for those unable to visualise the true beauty of these books or any book, and he knows their likes and dislikes better than us. Most cannot sit through a two hour film due to attention deficit, anything more than a simple plot destroys the limited brain cells of most of the film-going public, so Jackson has to keep it as simple as possible, yet The Lord of the Rings is anything but simple. Given his treatment of LotR's, I worry that his next excursion into Middle-earth may well be, The Hobbit, There or Thereabouts (The Quest of Errorbore), but I'll still watch it.

Nerwen

08-17-2010, 10:22 AM

for his versions are for those unable to visualise the true beauty of these books or any book, and he knows their likes and dislikes better than us. Most cannot sit through a two hour film due to attention deficit, anything more than a simple plot destroys the limited brain cells of most of the film-going public, so Jackson has to keep it as simple as possible, yet The Lord of the Rings is anything but simple.

nafforc, I think you'll find most of the film-going public can indeed sit through a two-hour film quite easily– hence the popularity of two and even three-hour epics. Like the LotR movies, now that you mention it. They're not exactly shorts, you know.:rolleyes: My main problem with Jackson et al is that they went and added extra story complications made up out of their own heads. These would have been better films if they had stuck to simplifying them.

Also, I think you should remember that rather a lot of people– not all of them drooling vegetables– do actually like these films. Rumour has it that some of them are even members of this forum.

And yeah, I'm picking on you a bit, nafforc, but it's like this: the exaggerated bitterness some hardcore Tolkien fans have towards the films can get a little tiresome, but I can accept that. The sneering at movie-fans themselves... not so much. And really, you need to get this into perspective. There are films out there that would entirely justify you assuming their fans had "limited brain cells" or "attention deficit". I really don't think these are among them.

Bêthberry

08-17-2010, 05:04 PM

And really, you need to get this into perspective. There are films out there that would entirely justify you assuming their fans had "limited brain cells" or "attention deficit". I really don't think these are among them.

Everyone has his or her own tastes, which we should respect.

But for perspective, I would humbly suggest looking at the lists of best films of the "Noughties". Every one of them has its own axe to grind and own perspective to plug, but overall there's not many that put any of the Jackson films in the top ten. Even those that are heavily-weighted towards fantasy don't put LotR at the top, even when including some part of the trilogy in the top ten. And when the comparison extends to best films of all times, incorporating the legendary films of the twentieth century, Jackson's trilogy just fades.

They might be a top franchise though. ;)

Of course, I could be a smidgeon biased. ;)

I suspect that however much they complain here, most people on this thread (and the entire forum, for that matter) will go out and watch the films, just as they did with LOTR.

I have DVDS of all three movies. But two of them are still wrapped in cellophane. :p

Nerwen

08-18-2010, 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by Nerwen
And really, you need to get this into perspective. There are films out there that would entirely justify you assuming their fans had "limited brain cells" or "attention deficit". I really don't think these are among them.
Everyone has his or her own tastes, which we should respect.
Which is why I didn't give any specific examples... but now you mention it I'll retract that "entirely justified", because as you say people are allowed to like anything, and in fact I have a soft spot myself for some extremely silly films.

But for perspective, I would humbly suggest looking at the lists of best films of the "Noughties". Every one of them has its own axe to grind and own perspective to plug, but overall there's not many that put any of the Jackson films in the top ten. Even those that are heavily-weighted towards fantasy don't put LotR at the top, even when including some part of the trilogy in the top ten. And when the comparison extends to best films of all times, incorporating the legendary films of the twentieth century, Jackson's trilogy just fades.

I'd agree with you there– and two or three years ago you would have found me arguing against people who thought everyone "had" to like the LotR movies, or that they were among the greatest films of all time. I think they went through a period of being overrated just because people were so impressed with Jackson's achievement in making a viable movie trilogy out of an "unfilmable" book.

narfforc

08-18-2010, 07:53 AM

Nerwen, I think you need to read what I wrote again. This is another meaning to it than the one you have come to.

I have all four released versions of this trilogy of films, I never said I didn't like them, I only hinted at the storyline problems. I go to the cinema quite often, at least once a week, and when The Hobbit is released I will be at the front of the queue. The vast majority of my work collegues will watch the pirate DVD, these are the PEOPLE who I alluded to. Peter Jackson made those films for an audience which probably does not use this site, and I would probably guess that ten time more Non-Tolkien fans watched them than the likes of us. Maybe many people read the book after the film, if they did I thank Peter Jackson for that. However, when I mention the book to anyone, the general response is that they have seen the films, for them I feel sorry. You only have to look at the total confusion that The Witch-king vs Gandalf discussion has caused. Tolkien left that moment in the book as one of tense suspense, Peter Jackson decides that he would alter this, why, so that the people watching his version would gain a different perspective than the one which Tolkien wanted to portray. I do not remember any argument about this situation before the films, Tolkien's words were enough, as I said, it is not what Jackson leaves out, it's what he puts in. So to finish, yes I do like the films, I have all the books about the films, I have 13 swords, 6 helmets, two shields, two staffs and hundreds of the painted figures from them. My house is full of Tolkien, I have over 400 books on/of his works, which includes 65 copies of The Lord of the Rings, 20 Silmarillions and 43 Hobbits. I have seen the Baksi version, listened to the radio play, watched the Jackson versions and seen both the Stage Play and The One Man Lord of the Rings. I welcome all types of medium to the expansion of his works. I know a number of Tolkien artists on first names terms and consider them my friends, but it doesn't stop me telling them if I like a piece of their art or not. I am not bitter about Jackson, only his additions.

Nerwen

08-18-2010, 09:39 AM

Okay, nafforc. As I just said, I don't think people should feel obliged to like anything whatever, anyway. It's not that: I was just objecting to your phrasing, which came across as though you were saying, "anyone who likes the films is an idiot". I accept now you didn't actually mean that.

And yes, Jackson & Co. made what I think are some pretty odd decisions. That's part of what I was trying to say before: there's too many changes that aren't for the purpose of streamlining the story, or otherwise adapting it to the medium of film. Some of the reasons they gave remind me a little too much of the sort of thing you learn in screenwriting courses– "the rules" for how to give characters "realistic flaws", how to build tension etc. Which is to say, a useful guide, especially if you're writing a story from scratch, but not one that should be followed too rigidly.

Bêthberry

08-20-2010, 09:52 AM

I'd agree with you there– and two or three years ago you would have found me arguing against people who thought everyone "had" to like the LotR movies, or that they were among the greatest films of all time. I think they went through a period of being overrated just because people were so impressed with Jackson's achievement in making a viable movie trilogy out of an "unfilmable" book.

It's interesting how something can catch interest, but then wane as time goes on.

I remember going to see Return of the Jedi about ten or twelve times when it came out. It was a favourite Friday afternoon activity for those of us who wanted to avoid doing any more serious research for the week.

Now, if it's on tv, I won't make any extra effort to catch it. Maybe that's because I was thoroughly unimpressed by Anakin Skywalker's story.

So to finish, yes I do like the films, I have all the books about the films, I have 13 swords, 6 helmets, two shields, two staffs and hundreds of the painted figures from them. My house is full of Tolkien, I have over 400 books on/of his works, which includes 65 copies of The Lord of the Rings, 20 Silmarillions and 43 Hobbits. I have seen the Baksi version, listened to the radio play, watched the Jackson versions and seen both the Stage Play and The One Man Lord of the Rings.

narf, you've omitted a certain Blue Wizard's costume I think. Is it in your closet or your attic or is it already packed? :D

If the movie is ever eventually made, I would be really interested in knowing what ideas Del Toro had which didn't make it into the movie.

Encaitare

08-20-2010, 08:56 PM

I have good faith in the Hobbit film, despite all these silly setbacks. After all, the LotR franchise has brought millions to New Line and Co, and nothing inspires effort and a job well done like the promise of profit.

And since this thread has kind of turned into pointing out the flaws of the LotR films, I'd like to add this thought. When the movies first came out, I watched them constantly, just loved them. I'd hold marathon parties with friends and we'd watch all three extended editions back-to-back-to-back. Now it's been a while since I've seen them, and I can recognize where something is out-of-character, or imagine how something might have been done a little better. But there are still those moments that take my breath away for their beauty and the sheer scope of it all. I still feel for the characters just as much as I did five years ago. And that is good cinema, plain and simple.

Those were the stories that stayed with you. ;)

Also, they'd better keep Ian McKellen, no matter what it takes!