Liam Neeson as Gandalf!!?
Michael Martinez
>It was interesting to hear that Warwick Davis has been quoted as
>saying that Liam Neeson would play Gandalf.
Where did you hear that Warwick Davis had said this?
>Sounds ridiculous, but how about if Warwick is not particularly up on
>his Tolkien character names and he made a mistake. Maybe he had heard
>something about Liam Nesson being up for a part and thought it was
>Gandalf. Just maybe we're actually talking Aragorn here.
>
>I hope so because Liam would be great in that part.
>
>As for Warwick Davis as Gimli which was the part he auditioned for
>(and where he heard the Neeson info) I just hope he doesn't get it.
>Call me what you like, but that's just not the way I see Gimli. I
>suppose the truth is I think of Tolkien's dwarves as being an entirely
>new race unlike anything that exists in reality.
Frankly, I don't think Warwick Davis would work in any of the parts
suggested for him. He has the wrong kind of voice for a Dwarf. And
hobbits aren't supposed to look like they have dwarfism.
--
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
\\// RealName: Science Fiction and Fantasy Xenite.Org
//\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm]
// \\ENITE.org...............................................
Prembone
> Frankly, I don't think Warwick Davis would work in any of the parts
> suggested for him. He has the wrong kind of voice for a Dwarf. And
> hobbits aren't supposed to look like they have dwarfism.
How about Barliman Butterbur? ;-) He'd make a charming Butterbur. With
a bit of electronic enhancement to bring his height closer to five feet
than four, and a bit of padding, he could pass as a short, stout Man of
Bree.
Then again, I think Glenn Close would make a good Galadriel, so take the
opinion for what it's worth.
--
Prembone (remove the "bs" phrase when replying)
**************************************************
The Prembone Pages: Humor, Opinion, Parody, Satire
http://www.geocities.com/~prembone/
"The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible." --
Oscar Wilde
DJV1125
>hobbits aren't supposed to look like they have dwarfism.
>
Yes!!!!!!
I hope that they do not make that cardinal mistake. Hobbits are supposed to
be just a smaller race, not a physically challenged one. I have always
envisioned them as just petite, more earthy people. The idea of digitally
reducing full size actors should be the way to go. Or start a whole new wave
of demand for slaller statured actors...but not Dwarfs. excuse me, Little
People?Vertically challenged?
Mark Hockley
Martinez) wrote:
>In article <3718952a...@news.tesco.net>, mhoc...@tesco.net wrote:
>>It was interesting to hear that Warwick Davis has been quoted as
>>saying that Liam Neeson would play Gandalf.
>
>Where did you hear that Warwick Davis had said this?
>
It was over at Coming Attractions. But like I said I doubt that
Warwick got his facts right. Then again, who can say!? But I'd be
very shocked to see Liam Neeson as Gandalf. I can't believe Peter
Jackson would cast him in that role. No, I think Aragorn is his part,
or perhaps Boromir.
Mind you, I still maintain my hunch that Sam Neill will end up playing
Aragorn and I'm leaning toward thinking that Tom Baker may play
Gandalf (with Patrick McGoohan as an outside possibilty, depending on
his availabity). I should add that I would be very happy with any of
these choices.
Mark
Mark
Dimitris Tsallas
wrote:
>Mind you, I still maintain my hunch that Sam Neill will end up playing
>Aragorn and I'm leaning toward thinking that Tom Baker may play
>Gandalf (with Patrick McGoohan as an outside possibilty, depending on
>his availabity). I should add that I would be very happy with any of
>these choices.
IMNSHO, Sam Neill can neither portray a leader nor a warrior, he just
doesn't have the stature. I always pictured Aragorn like someone with
a rectangular face indicative of the hardship he's been through. Sam
Neill's round face is far from my image of Aragorn.
__!Support a peaceful solution of the Kosovo crisis!__
Dimitris Tsallas
(Replace .wrong with .gr to reply)
http://www.scifi.gr
Dante
>In article <371aec1...@news.tesco.net>, mhoc...@tesco.net wrote:
>>On Sun, 18 Apr 1999 19:52:48 GMT, Mic...@xenite.org (Michael
>>Martinez) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3718952a...@news.tesco.net>, mhoc...@tesco.net wrote:
>>>>It was interesting to hear that Warwick Davis has been quoted as
>>>>saying that Liam Neeson would play Gandalf.
>>>
>>>Where did you hear that Warwick Davis had said this?
>>>
>>
>>It was over at Coming Attractions. But like I said I doubt that
>>Warwick got his facts right. Then again, who can say!? But I'd be
>>very shocked to see Liam Neeson as Gandalf. I can't believe Peter
>>Jackson would cast him in that role. No, I think Aragorn is his part,
>>or perhaps Boromir.
>
>Neeson would have to drop out of the STAR WARS movies to act in LOTR as
>Gandalf. I can't believe he would do that.
...I don't think his character, Qui Gon Jinn, appears in any of the
other films. He's Obi Wan's Mentor in Phantam Menace, but I remember
reading that the next episode takes place about 10 years after Phantom
Menace, so it's doubtful Obi Wan'll still be his apprentice by then.
Michael Martinez
>On Sun, 18 Apr 1999 19:52:48 GMT, Mic...@xenite.org (Michael
>Martinez) wrote:
>
>>In article <3718952a...@news.tesco.net>, mhoc...@tesco.net wrote:
>>>It was interesting to hear that Warwick Davis has been quoted as
>>>saying that Liam Neeson would play Gandalf.
>>
>>Where did you hear that Warwick Davis had said this?
>>
>
>It was over at Coming Attractions. But like I said I doubt that
>Warwick got his facts right. Then again, who can say!? But I'd be
>very shocked to see Liam Neeson as Gandalf. I can't believe Peter
>Jackson would cast him in that role. No, I think Aragorn is his part,
>or perhaps Boromir.
Neeson would have to drop out of the STAR WARS movies to act in LOTR as
Gandalf. I can't believe he would do that.
BB
Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote in message
news:371a...@news.usenetserver.com...
> In article <3718952a...@news.tesco.net>, mhoc...@tesco.net wrote:
> >It was interesting to hear that Warwick Davis has been quoted as
> >saying that Liam Neeson would play Gandalf.
>
> Where did you hear that Warwick Davis had said this?
>
> >his Tolkien character names and he made a mistake. Maybe he had heard
> >something about Liam Nesson being up for a part and thought it was
> >Gandalf. Just maybe we're actually talking Aragorn here.
> >
> >I hope so because Liam would be great in that part.
> >
> >As for Warwick Davis as Gimli which was the part he auditioned for
> >(and where he heard the Neeson info) I just hope he doesn't get it.
> >Call me what you like, but that's just not the way I see Gimli. I
> >suppose the truth is I think of Tolkien's dwarves as being an entirely
> >new race unlike anything that exists in reality.
>
> hobbits aren't supposed to look like they have dwarfism.
>
>
>
>
Dave Corcoran
BB wrote in message <7fh014$dg5$1...@Usenet.Logical.NET>...
>Would it not be cool if Orsen Wells portrayed him?
LOL
I'll go get you a spade so you can go dig him up and ask him!
Dave
Michael Martinez
>Rybezynski wrote:
>
>> << From: Prembone <prem...@earthlinkbitespam.net>
>> Date: Sun, Apr 18, 1999 1:44 PM
>> Message-id: <371A5242...@earthlinkbitespam.net>
>>
>> Michael Martinez wrote:
>>
>> > Frankly, I don't think Warwick Davis would work in any of the parts
>> > suggested for him. He has the wrong kind of voice for a Dwarf. And
>> > hobbits aren't supposed to look like they have dwarfism.
>>
>> a bit of electronic enhancement to bring his height closer to five feet
>> than four, and a bit of padding, he could pass as a short, stout Man of
>> Bree.
>>
>> Then again, I think Glenn Close would make a good Galadriel, so take the
>> opinion for what it's worth. >>
>>
> dwarf
>> speech? Is that how you know? Why is Warwick Davis' voice the wrong kind?
>> Should that automatically exclude him from the role of Gimli?
>
>Based on the language and mannerisms of Gimli, one would assume he has a gruff
>voice, unlike Warwick Davis.
I hate to quote that entire message, as I'm just responding to a small part
of it, but I want to leave in the full context. :)
Tolkien doesn't say much about how the Dwarves' voices actually sounded,
but when they sing he describes their voices:
"The dark filled the room, and the fire died down, and the shadows
were lost, and still they played on. And suddenly first one and
then another began to sing as they played, deep-throated singing
of the dwarves in the deep places of their ancient homes: and this
is like a fragment of their song, if it can be like their song
without their music."
(From "An Unexpected Party" in THE HOBBIT)
"He rose and standing in the dark he began to chant in a deep
voice, while the echoes ran away into the roof."
(From "A Journey in the Dark" in THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING)
I spent four years as a student assistant in the Department of Music and
Performing Arts where I went to college. That by no means makes me an
expert in Voice or Music, but I observed that tenors sound like tenors when
they talk, baritones sound like baritones when they talk.
I was persuaded to take Voice one Summer quarter and my professor was
impressed with my range. I could go pretty low (he measured me at about
3-1/2 octaves). He said I was some sort of tenor (I don't recall what
kind) but I could definitely sing below the normal tenor range.
Nonetheless, my voice is somewhat high-pitched and nasal unless I
intentionally lower it. But I cannot even began to approach the low tones
of a deep baritone singer.
So, based on what Tolkien says of the Dwarven voices, I conclude that
Warwick Davis, good actor though he is, is not appropriately equipped to
play a Dwarf. But I don't think I've ever heard him sing. Perhaps I'm
mistaken.
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez posted the following to rec.arts.sf.movies:
>>
>>Gandalf. I can't believe he would do that.
>
>other films. He's Obi Wan's Mentor in Phantam Menace, but I remember
>reading that the next episode takes place about 10 years after Phantom
>Menace, so it's doubtful Obi Wan'll still be his apprentice by then.
Hm. I guess I'll have to go back to the STAR WARS site sometime later this
week. I could have sworn the character was going to be in more than one
film. But perhaps I was mistaken.
Neeson probably could do a decent job as Gandalf -- as an actor I've
enjoyed his work -- but there are other actors who fit my image of Gandalf
better. I've even come around to wishing Connery WOULD play Gandalf.
Scottish brogue and all.
Adam Barnard
> In article <371cda8...@news.concentric.net>,
> Dan...@geocities.com wrote:
> >Michael Martinez posted the following to rec.arts.sf.movies:
> >>
> >>Neeson would have to drop out of the STAR WARS movies to act in LOTR
> as
> >>Gandalf. I can't believe he would do that.
> >
> >....I don't think his character, Qui Gon Jinn, appears in any of the
> >other films. He's Obi Wan's Mentor in Phantam Menace, but I remember
>
> >reading that the next episode takes place about 10 years after
> Phantom
> >Menace, so it's doubtful Obi Wan'll still be his apprentice by then.
>
> Hm. I guess I'll have to go back to the STAR WARS site sometime later
> this
> week. I could have sworn the character was going to be in more than
> one
> film. But perhaps I was mistaken.
>
> Neeson probably could do a decent job as Gandalf -- as an actor I've
> enjoyed his work -- but there are other actors who fit my image of
> Gandalf
> better. I've even come around to wishing Connery WOULD play Gandalf.
> Scottish brogue and all.
But wouldn't Neeson be just a little too tall for Gandalf? IIRC he's
about 6'4" which DEFINITELY taller than Gandlaf, who is supposed to be
short. I suppose they could shrink Neeson also, but it doesn't seem
like it would make much sense to me.
Mike Holcomb
>But wouldn't Neeson be just a little too tall for Gandalf?
Has anyone considered that Liam Neeson simply may not wish to portray
wizened, berobed, "mentor" characters in back-to-back, high profile
projects? The parts may be too similar for his liking. Just a thought...
--
Mike Holcomb
ICQ: You Know My Name (Look Up The Number)
MHolcomb68 on AOL IM
Adam Barnard
> Adam Barnard wrote in message <371C8255...@mail.utexas.edu>...
>
> >But wouldn't Neeson be just a little too tall for Gandalf?
>
> Has anyone considered that Liam Neeson simply may not wish to portray
> wizened, berobed, "mentor" characters in back-to-back, high profile
> projects? The parts may be too similar for his liking. Just a
> thought...
I don't think anyone was suggesting him for the role. Merely discussing
a rumor that he had auditioned for the role. Personally I doubt the
truth of the rumor, but then again, I pretty much doubt anything now
until I hear Peter Jackson say it.
Neil Anderson
Michael Martinez wrote:
> In article <371cda8...@news.concentric.net>, Dan...@geocities.com wrote:
> >Michael Martinez posted the following to rec.arts.sf.movies:
> >>
> >>Neeson would have to drop out of the STAR WARS movies to act in LOTR as
> >>Gandalf. I can't believe he would do that.
> >
> >....I don't think his character, Qui Gon Jinn, appears in any of the
> >other films. He's Obi Wan's Mentor in Phantam Menace, but I remember
> >reading that the next episode takes place about 10 years after Phantom
> >Menace, so it's doubtful Obi Wan'll still be his apprentice by then.
>
SPOILER SPACE
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
At the end of the movie Qui Jon is killed by Darth Maul, who is then eradicated by
Obi Wan. That is the latest update I have seen around the WWW.
Neil Anderson
Bygones
BB
Adam Barnard <bee...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:371C8255...@mail.utexas.edu...
> Michael Martinez wrote:
>
> > In article <371cda8...@news.concentric.net>,
> > Dan...@geocities.com wrote:
> > >Michael Martinez posted the following to rec.arts.sf.movies:
> > >>
> > >>Neeson would have to drop out of the STAR WARS movies to act in LOTR
> > as
> > >>Gandalf. I can't believe he would do that.
> > >
> > >....I don't think his character, Qui Gon Jinn, appears in any of the
> > >other films. He's Obi Wan's Mentor in Phantam Menace, but I remember
> >
> > >reading that the next episode takes place about 10 years after
> > Phantom
> > >Menace, so it's doubtful Obi Wan'll still be his apprentice by then.
> >
Bryan H Smith III
W.B. Dillon
BB wrote:
> I still like Orsen Wells
--
You are aware of course that Orsen Wells has been dead since about 1984,
correct?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.B. Dillon ~ My e-mail address has been altered to
Bowling Green State U. ~ foil the dreaded and evil spam-bots. Remove
(555) 555 - 5555 ~ the "B" from "WBDillon" to reply.
wbdi...@bgnet.bgsu ~ - W.B. Dillon
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LARS SCHERMER
that, Sean Connery WILL! be playing the role as Gandalf.
lars
Adam Barnard
> Hmmm I know I'm a newcomer and all, but if I am not mistaken rumour has it
> that, Sean Connery WILL! be playing the role as Gandalf.
That's what some rumor have said but they have been declared false by the
Director himself.
Michael Martinez
<4cDU2.212$b%6....@news.get2net.dk> "LARS did proclaim:
>
>Hmmm I know I'm a newcomer and all, but if I am not mistaken rumour has it
>that, Sean Connery WILL! be playing the role as Gandalf.
Well, you're right. RUMOR does indeed say that, and has been for well over a
year. Of course, Peter Jackson has said more than once that Sean Connery will
NOT be playing Gandalf and that he hasn't even talked to Connery about the role.
--
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
\\// RealName: Science Fiction and Fantasy Xenite.Org
//\\ Mic...@xenite.org [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm]
// \\ENITE.org..........................................................
Jens Thomsen
Adam Barnard skrev i meddelelsen <37235DDA...@mail.utexas.edu>...
>LARS SCHERMER wrote:
>
>> Hmmm I know I'm a newcomer and all, but if I am not mistaken rumour
has it
>> that, Sean Connery WILL! be playing the role as Gandalf.
>
the
>Director himself.
Last thing I heard was that there wasn't even money in the budget for
such an expensive actor as Connery.
Regards,
Jens
Warchild
<Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
> On the day of Sun, 25 Apr 1999 13:43:38 +0200 in article
> <4cDU2.212$b%6....@news.get2net.dk> "LARS did proclaim:
> >
> >Hmmm I know I'm a newcomer and all, but if I am not mistaken rumour has it
> >that, Sean Connery WILL! be playing the role as Gandalf.
>
> Well, you're right. RUMOR does indeed say that, and has been for well over a
> year. Of course, Peter Jackson has said more than once that Sean Connery will
> NOT be playing Gandalf and that he hasn't even talked to Connery about
the role.
>
> --
> \\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
> \\// RealName: Science Fiction and Fantasy Xenite.Org
> //\\ Mic...@xenite.org [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm]
> // \\ENITE.org..........................................................
I just read a report that Tom Baker was being considered for Gandalf. He
would be a good choice (and probably much less expensive than
Connery/Neeson/over-priced englishman du jour).
Paul Andinach
> On the day of Sun, 25 Apr 1999 13:43:38 +0200 in article
> <4cDU2.212$b%6....@news.get2net.dk> "LARS did proclaim:
>
> > Hmmm I know I'm a newcomer and all, but if I am not mistaken
> > rumour has it that, Sean Connery WILL! be playing the role as
> > Gandalf.
>
> Well, you're right. RUMOR does indeed say that, and has been for
> well over a year. Of course, Peter Jackson has said more than once
> that Sean Connery will NOT be playing Gandalf and that he hasn't
> even talked to Connery about the role.
New mutation: Newspaper report - "rumour has it" that Connery will
play "the Hobbit elder" Gandalf...
Paul
--
"I'm reading a book called *Thesaurus*, by Peter Mark Roget. I'm up
to Chapter 427, entitled "Semitransparency". It's a good story, but
I think the author is a bit of a show off regarding his vocabulary."
- Samuel Stoddard
Graham Lockwood
<pand...@mermaid.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>New mutation: Newspaper report - "rumour has it" that Connery will
>play "the Hobbit elder" Gandalf...
*ack* *gag* *sounds of choking in the background*
||// // Lord Graham of the Locked Wood, || //
|// // ||//
(/ // Royal Detective at Need |//
||// Torog Hunter Extraordinaire (/)
|// and //|
(/ Warden of the Keys //||
|| of the TEUNC Listserver // ||
Öjevind Lång
Graham Lockwood skrev i meddelandet <372405af...@news.fsu.edu>...
>On Mon, 26 Apr 1999 14:20:50 +0800, Paul Andinach
><pand...@mermaid.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>>New mutation: Newspaper report - "rumour has it" that Connery will
>>play "the Hobbit elder" Gandalf...
>
>*ack* *gag* *sounds of choking in the background*
>
I don't see what's so disgusting about that. Just consider how impressive
he'll be at the Concil of Elrond, reading aloud the inscription in the
Black Speech that is on the Ring:
Ash nashk durbatulūk, ash nashk gimbatul, ash nashk thrakatulūk...
Öjevind
Jouni Karhu
>Graham Lockwood skrev i meddelandet <372405af...@news.fsu.edu>...
>>On Mon, 26 Apr 1999 14:20:50 +0800, Paul Andinach
>><pand...@mermaid.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>>>New mutation: Newspaper report - "rumour has it" that Connery will
>>>play "the Hobbit elder" Gandalf...
>>
>>*ack* *gag* *sounds of choking in the background*
>>
>--------
>I don't see what's so disgusting about that. Just consider how impressive
>he'll be at the Concil of Elrond, reading aloud the inscription in the
>Black Speech that is on the Ring:
>
>Ash nashk durbatulūk, ash nashk gimbatul, ash nashk thrakatulūk...
. . . agh bursum-ishi krimpatul, yeah, yeah. But I think the
disgusting part of that was the 'hobbit elder' part, not the 'Connery'
part . . . besides, if you want to go with voice, get James Earl
Jones. On the other hand -- maybe he would be a good Saruman.
--
'I have something to say! | 'The Immoral Immortal' \o JJ Karhu
It is better to burn out, | -=========================OxxxxxxxxxxxO
than to fade away!' | kur...@modeemi.cs.tut.fi /o
Öjevind Lång
Jouni Karhu skrev i meddelandet <37247663...@news.cc.tut.fi>...
>"Öjevind Lång" <ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>>Graham Lockwood skrev i meddelandet <372405af...@news.fsu.edu>...
>>>On Mon, 26 Apr 1999 14:20:50 +0800, Paul Andinach
>>><pand...@mermaid.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>>>>New mutation: Newspaper report - "rumour has it" that Connery will
>>>>play "the Hobbit elder" Gandalf...
>>>
>>>*ack* *gag* *sounds of choking in the background*
>>>
>>--------
>>I don't see what's so disgusting about that. Just consider how impressive
>>he'll be at the Concil of Elrond, reading aloud the inscription in the
>>Black Speech that is on the Ring:
>>
>
>. . . agh bursum-ishi krimpatul, yeah, yeah. But I think the
>disgusting part of that was the 'hobbit elder' part, not the 'Connery'
>part . . . besides, if you want to go with voice, get James Earl
>Jones. On the other hand -- maybe he would be a good Saruman.
>
The reason I stopped in the middle of the incantation was that it contains
no more good sibilants for Connery to mangle. Don't you have a spelling
check for the Black Speech on your computer?
Öjevind
Adam Barnard
> Graham Lockwood skrev i meddelandet <372405af...@news.fsu.edu>...
> >On Mon, 26 Apr 1999 14:20:50 +0800, Paul Andinach
> ><pand...@mermaid.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
> >>New mutation: Newspaper report - "rumour has it" that Connery will
> >>play "the Hobbit elder" Gandalf...
> >
> >*ack* *gag* *sounds of choking in the background*
> >
> --------
> I don't see what's so disgusting about that. Just consider how impressive
> he'll be at the Concil of Elrond, reading aloud the inscription in the
> Black Speech that is on the Ring:
The fact is though, Gandalf is not a "Hobbit Elder."
Prembone
> New mutation: Newspaper report - "rumour has it" that Connery will
> play "the Hobbit elder" Gandalf...
There's my laugh of the day! Thanks.
--
Prembone (remove the "bs" phrase when replying)
**************************************************
The Prembone Pages: Humor, Opinion, Parody, Satire
http://www.geocities.com/~prembone/
"The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible." --
Oscar Wilde
Öjevind Lång
Adam Barnard hath written:
>The fact is though, Gandalf is not a "Hobbit Elder."
>
>
Of course he isn't. But it's no worse than all that rubbish in another
thread quoting some antipodean newspaper to the effect that Middle-earth was
"an idealized version of Olde Europe", and what not. Do I have to write
HYUKHYUKHYUK beside every inanity about Tolkien in order to show that I have
a sense of humour?
Öjevind
Michael Martinez
<LYUU2.16310$x43....@nntpserver.swip.net> "Öjevind did proclaim:
>
>
>Graham Lockwood skrev i meddelandet <372405af...@news.fsu.edu>...
>>On Mon, 26 Apr 1999 14:20:50 +0800, Paul Andinach
>>>New mutation: Newspaper report - "rumour has it" that Connery will
>>>play "the Hobbit elder" Gandalf...
>>
>>
>--------
>I don't see what's so disgusting about that. Just consider how impressive
>he'll be at the Concil of Elrond, reading aloud the inscription in the
>Black Speech that is on the Ring:
[snip]
I believe the choking sounds from Paul were over the "Hobbit elder" description
of Gandalf.
Graham Lockwood
wrote:
>On the day of Mon, 26 Apr 1999 09:52:34 +0200 in article
><LYUU2.16310$x43....@nntpserver.swip.net> "Öjevind did proclaim:
>>Graham Lockwood skrev i meddelandet <372405af...@news.fsu.edu>...
>>>On Mon, 26 Apr 1999 14:20:50 +0800, Paul Andinach
>>><pand...@mermaid.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>>>>New mutation: Newspaper report - "rumour has it" that Connery will
>>>>play "the Hobbit elder" Gandalf...
>>>
>>>*ack* *gag* *sounds of choking in the background*
>>>
>>--------
>>I don't see what's so disgusting about that. Just consider how impressive
>>he'll be at the Concil of Elrond, reading aloud the inscription in the
>>Black Speech that is on the Ring:
>
>[snip]
>
>I believe the choking sounds from Paul were over the "Hobbit elder" description
>of Gandalf.
No, I believe the choking sounds were from *me* for that very reason.
;)
Warchild
<Pine.LNX.3.96.99042...@mermaid.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au>, Paul
Andinach <pand...@mermaid.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
> Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>
> > On the day of Sun, 25 Apr 1999 13:43:38 +0200 in article
> > <4cDU2.212$b%6....@news.get2net.dk> "LARS did proclaim:
> >
> > > Hmmm I know I'm a newcomer and all, but if I am not mistaken
> > > rumour has it that, Sean Connery WILL! be playing the role as
> > > Gandalf.
> >
> > Well, you're right. RUMOR does indeed say that, and has been for
> > well over a year. Of course, Peter Jackson has said more than once
> > that Sean Connery will NOT be playing Gandalf and that he hasn't
> > even talked to Connery about the role.
>
> New mutation: Newspaper report - "rumour has it" that Connery will
> play "the Hobbit elder" Gandalf...
>
> Paul
I thought that Connery was going to be cast as 'the tall hobbit in the
back row'.
Öjevind Lång
Michael Martinez hath written in<7g2ks9$e...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>On the day of Mon, 26 Apr 1999 09:52:34 +0200 in article
><LYUU2.16310$x43....@nntpserver.swip.net> "Öjevind did proclaim:
>>
>>
Actually, I just was a bit embarrassed. You see, I've always thought that
Gandalf WAS a Hobbit Elder. I thought the other Hobbits called him "Wizard"
as an honorific because of his marvellous fireworks.
Seriously, I was rather tired when I read Graham's message, so the "Hobbit
Elder" idiocy passed right by me. The reason for that was that I sat up far
too long the night before last, reading ATF messsages, answering messages
and enjoying myself immensely. Everyting is the fault of YOU PEOPLE at AFT
for being so much fun to be around.
I should also add that while I was consulting "The Hobbit" in order to
find arguments against you in a certain discussion pertaining to a group of
vertically challenged people of non-Hobbit extraction, it occurred to me
that it was a long time since I last read that book. (The one I keep
rereading is "The Lord of the Rings".) Accordingly, I started on "The
Hobbit" anew. I owe you one for that.
Cheers, :)
Öjevind
Prembone
> I thought that Connery was going to be cast as 'the tall hobbit in the
> back row'.
"Goodbye, Frodo B.
From the tall Hobbit in the twenty-second row...."
(From "Candle in the Wind, 1421")
Selsick
Dimitris Tsallas <el9...@central.ntua.wrong> wrote in article
<3724b711...@news.ntua.gr>...
> On Mon, 19 Apr 1999 08:50:30 GMT, mhoc...@tesco.net (Mark Hockley)
> wrote:
>
>
> >Mind you, I still maintain my hunch that Sam Neill will end up playing
> >Aragorn
Aragorn is described as lean, with long legs. I think Daniel Day Lewis
would be good in the part.
Hugh
>
Clyde Griffiths
<re...@global.co.za> writes
>
--
Clyde
Thomas Bagwell
Selsick <re...@global.co.za> wrote in message
news:01be957e$94031340$551ccbd1@selsick...
>
> Dimitris Tsallas <el9...@central.ntua.wrong> wrote in article
> <3724b711...@news.ntua.gr>...
> > On Mon, 19 Apr 1999 08:50:30 GMT, mhoc...@tesco.net (Mark
Hockley)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Mind you, I still maintain my hunch that Sam Neill will end up
playing
> > >Aragorn
>
> Aragorn is described as lean, with long legs. I think Daniel Day
Lewis
> would be good in the part.
Heh...what about Ryan Stiles?
Tom B.
Luke Bond
ignorance). And isn't Daniel Day Lewis getting a bit old?
Selsick wrote:
> Dimitris Tsallas <el9...@central.ntua.wrong> wrote in article
> <3724b711...@news.ntua.gr>...
> > On Mon, 19 Apr 1999 08:50:30 GMT, mhoc...@tesco.net (Mark Hockley)
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Mind you, I still maintain my hunch that Sam Neill will end up playing
> > >Aragorn
>
> Aragorn is described as lean, with long legs. I think Daniel Day Lewis
> would be good in the part.
>
> Hugh
> >
The Judicator
great, Aragorn was not exactly young (about 60 yrs old at the time of
LOTR?), and he did have fleck of grey hair, if I'm not mistaken.
---The Judicator---
ch...@ihug.com.au
all spammers will be trashed and ignored
Luke Bond wrote in message <372E9314...@ionsoftware.com.au>...
Öjevind Lång
The Judicator hath written in <7gmbdh$p7o$1...@toto.tig.com.au>...
>well, regarding Daniel Day Lewis, although I do not think he would be that
>great, Aragorn was not exactly young (about 60 yrs old at the time of
>LOTR?), and he did have fleck of grey hair, if I'm not mistaken.
>---The Judicator---
>ch...@ihug.com.au
At the time of the War of the Ring, Aragorn was 90 years old, but his age
cannot be perceived in terms of our kind of human. He was a Dúnedain in his
best years; after all, he lived to be 210 and voluntarily died before
physical decay could catch up with him.
Öjevind Lång
Bill Baldwin
>
>Aragorn is described as lean, with long legs. I think Daniel Day Lewis
>would be good in the part.
He'd be better than Sam Neill. But Day Lewis is more of a Boromir in my
book.
The real guy to play Aragorn is Gabriel Byrne. Tall. Lanky. Can make the
transition from sinister to scruffy to regal. Hey casting dudes! Are you
listening?
Dee Hinson
<cly...@odin2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <01be957e$94031340$551ccbd1@selsick>, Selsick
> <re...@global.co.za> writes
> >
snipped
> >
> >Aragorn is described as lean, with long legs. I think Daniel Day Lewis
> >would be good in the part.
> >
> >Hugh
> >>
> Sean Bean would be better.
> >
Too short, and a limited range.All he ever does is huff. Daniel Day-Lewis
has always been my first choice (ever since I saw Last of the Mohicans),
but Gabriel Byrne sounds good too...
Regards,
Dee
--
*****************************************************
Dee and Philip Hinson London , England
"Here's to the Crazy Ones....."
*****************************************************
Harry Carrey
Thomas Bagwell <tnba...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7glc6h$idv$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > <3724b711...@news.ntua.gr>...
> > > On Mon, 19 Apr 1999 08:50:30 GMT, mhoc...@tesco.net (Mark
> Hockley)
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Mind you, I still maintain my hunch that Sam Neill will end up
> playing
> > > >Aragorn
> >
> Lewis
> > would be good in the part.
>
Alain Homsy
Clyde Griffiths wrote:
> In article <01be957e$94031340$551ccbd1@selsick>, Selsick
> <re...@global.co.za> writes
> >
> >
> >Dimitris Tsallas <el9...@central.ntua.wrong> wrote in article
> ><3724b711...@news.ntua.gr>...
> >> On Mon, 19 Apr 1999 08:50:30 GMT, mhoc...@tesco.net (Mark Hockley)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >Mind you, I still maintain my hunch that Sam Neill will end up playing
> >> >Aragorn
> >
> >
> >Aragorn is described as lean, with long legs. I think Daniel Day Lewis
> >would be good in the part.
> >
> >Hugh
> >>
> Sean Bean would be better.
> >
>
> --
> Clyde
Come to think of it, whenever I pictured Aragorn, it was Daniel D. L.! Wow,
uncanny.
Oli
John Robert Yates
> On another tack, I read in the L.A. Times that Catherine Zeta-Jones (rumored
> for Arwen) is actually Welsh. This certainly bumps up *my* appreciation of
> her for the role!
LOL!!! Don't you love it when AFT casting suggestions start rumors?? :)
David
it very clear that Aragorn wasn't a champion in the looks department, and
Lewis is too much of a sex symbol.
Gabriel Byrne? Well, I have to think about that one for a while.
Dee Hinson
<davidun...@home.com> wrote:
> I can believe Sam Neill in the part, but not Daniel Day Lewis. Tolkien makes
> it very clear that Aragorn wasn't a champion in the looks department, and
> Lewis is too much of a sex symbol.
Well, not in "The Crucible" - he looked rather tatty in that. But would
_you_ follow Sam Neill into The Paths of the Dead ?? (And he's not tall
enough ) I think charisma is more important in this role than anything
else, although some degree of looks is called for. Aragorn has to make a
credibly kingly figure and he is, after all, a descendant of Luthien and a
not-unfitting consort for an EvenStar. I really do like Sam Neill as an
actor, he's solid and dependable , but he's just not the type Who Gets The
Girl In The End.
>
> Gabriel Byrne? Well, I have to think about that one for a while.
>
> On another tack, I read in the L.A. Times that Catherine Zeta-Jones (rumored
> for Arwen) is actually Welsh. This certainly bumps up *my* appreciation of
> her for the role!
I prefer Madeline Stowe ; she seems to have an edge of sadness about her.
Catherine Zeta-Jones is too young.
Best wishes,
Sparky Fox
merlin in the two part movie / t.v. series of the same name, he kicked ass,
I think he would handle aragorn or gandalf down to a t.
--
Sparky Fox
"Bringing peace to the world thru violence"
spa...@sparkys-den.freeserve.co.uk
http://www.sparkys-den.freeserve.co.uk
Dee Hinson <dhi...@spurman.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dhinson-0405...@192.168.43.14...
> In article <+raElDAv...@odin2.demon.co.uk>, Clyde Griffiths
> <cly...@odin2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article <01be957e$94031340$551ccbd1@selsick>, Selsick
> > <re...@global.co.za> writes
> > >
> snipped
> > >
> > >Aragorn is described as lean, with long legs. I think Daniel Day Lewis
> > >would be good in the part.
> > >
> > >Hugh
> > >>
> > Sean Bean would be better.
> > >
>
> Too short, and a limited range.All he ever does is huff. Daniel Day-Lewis
> has always been my first choice (ever since I saw Last of the Mohicans),
> but Gabriel Byrne sounds good too...
> Regards,
Nathan E. Banks <Paganini>
news:kG2Y2.353$2_3...@news-reader.bt.net...
> Hate to disagree (well actualy I love to) but have you seen sam neil play
> merlin in the two part movie / t.v. series of the same name, he kicked
ass,
> I think he would handle aragorn or gandalf down to a t.
Maybe Aragorn...the guy is definately no wizard though
--
Paganini <Nathan E. Banks>
MOOk, the Great High Llama
ICQ 34492883
http://web.madisontelco.com/~paganini
chris martin
Here in New Zealand they are saying that Sam Neill & Sean Connery are to be
in the film!! Rumour perhaps but who knows??? ;-))
Chris
> <3724b711...@news.ntua.gr>...
> > On Mon, 19 Apr 1999 08:50:30 GMT, mhoc...@tesco.net (Mark Hockley)
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Mind you, I still maintain my hunch that Sam Neill will end up playing
> > >Aragorn
>
>
Anthony J. Bryant
>
> Hate to disagree (well actualy I love to) but have you seen sam neil play
> merlin in the two part movie / t.v. series of the same name, he kicked ass,
> I think he would handle aragorn or gandalf down to a t.
>
I've always seen Rutger Hauer in the role of Aragorn... (And Max von
Sydow as Gandalf...)
Tony
Laurie Forbes
Anthony J. Bryant <ajbr...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:373290...@indiana.edu...
I had picked Rutger Hauer for Théoden, but your "Aragron" idea is
interesting .... Good "Gandalf" pick, too, although I also like Patrick
McGoohan. I'm holding out for Ed Harris to be Elrond, but I might settle
for Celeborn.
--
Laurie Forbes
Anthony J. Bryant
>
> I had picked Rutger Hauer for Théoden, but your "Aragron" idea is
> interesting .... Good "Gandalf" pick, too, although I also like Patrick
> McGoohan. I'm holding out for Ed Harris to be Elrond, but I might settle
> for Celeborn.
I'd not thought of him as Theoden. He didn't strike me as "old
enough"... but Sydow wasn't that old when he was "aged" to be the priest
in "Exorcist." That could work. Hmmm...
Tony
Joe Ramirez
>
>Anthony J. Bryant <ajbr...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
>news:373290...@indiana.edu...
>> Sparky Fox wrote:
>> >
>> > Hate to disagree (well actualy I love to) but have you seen sam neil
>play
>> > merlin in the two part movie / t.v. series of the same name, he kicked
>ass,
>> > I think he would handle aragorn or gandalf down to a t.
>> >
>>
>> I've always seen Rutger Hauer in the role of Aragorn... (And Max von
>> Sydow as Gandalf...)
>>
>>
>> Tony
>
>I had picked Rutger Hauer for Théoden, but your "Aragron" idea is
>interesting .... Good "Gandalf" pick, too, although I also like Patrick
>McGoohan. I'm holding out for Ed Harris to be Elrond, but I might settle
>for Celeborn.
I'm waiting for Robin Williams as Tom Bombadil!
Joe Ramirez
db
Aragorn? He's got the face, build, and he's a good swordsman
db
Anthony J. Bryant wrote in message <37337C...@indiana.edu>...
>Laurie Forbes wrote:
>>
>> I had picked Rutger Hauer for Théoden, but your "Aragron" idea is
>> interesting .... Good "Gandalf" pick, too, although I also like Patrick
>> McGoohan. I'm holding out for Ed Harris to be Elrond, but I might
settle
>> for Celeborn.
>
Adam Barnard
> Think about this just a sec before responding: How about Steven Seagal for
> Aragorn? He's got the face, build, and he's a good swordsman
> db
The problem is he can't really come off as a king, which would be required for
the role. Also he tends to be a little too dark. Even for the the dark
parts.
Anthony J. Bryant
>
> Think about this just a sec before responding: How about Steven Seagal for
> Aragorn? He's got the face, build, and he's a good swordsman
> db
I would rather die than see that overblown, self-publicizing, left-wing,
whacko, pseudo-martial artists, walking ego touch any role in that film.
Tony
raoultom
a black belt in Aikido, very skilled in this. He sucks as an actor,
though, and that's *my* main objection to him as Aragorn!
Whirr,
Mary
Alain Homsy
Adam Barnard wrote:
> db wrote:
>
> > Think about this just a sec before responding: How about Steven Seagal for
> > Aragorn? He's got the face, build, and he's a good swordsman
> > db
>
> The problem is he can't really come off as a king, which would be required for
> the role. Also he tends to be a little too dark. Even for the the dark
> parts.
And he's a bit stiff as an actor
Dimitris Tsallas
>I'm waiting for Robin Williams as Tom Bombadil!
Got some bad news for you:
"Also, will you be including Tom Bombadil? The Ralph Bakshi production
cut it out, as did the BBC radio drama.”
PJ: At this point in time Bombadil is out. The main reason is not just
time or pace, but one of simple narrative focus ... the Bombadil
sequence has so little to do with Sauron or the Ring, it is difficult
to justify the screen time. It simply doesn't give us any vital new
information. A very simplest rule of thumb that I use in movie
storytelling is to try and further the story with each new scene.
__!Support a peaceful solution of the Kosovo crisis!__
Dimitris Tsallas
(Replace .wrong with .gr to reply)
http://www.scifi.gr
Joe Ramirez
>On Sat, 08 May 1999 03:54:15 GMT, jra...@ibm.net (Joe Ramirez) wrote:
>
>
>>I'm waiting for Robin Williams as Tom Bombadil!
>
>Got some bad news for you:
>
>"Also, will you be including Tom Bombadil? The Ralph Bakshi production
>cut it out, as did the BBC radio drama.”
>
>PJ: At this point in time Bombadil is out. The main reason is not just
>time or pace, but one of simple narrative focus ... the Bombadil
>sequence has so little to do with Sauron or the Ring, it is difficult
>to justify the screen time. It simply doesn't give us any vital new
>information. A very simplest rule of thumb that I use in movie
>storytelling is to try and further the story with each new scene.
Thanks for the information. The loss of Bombadil is to be regretted;
I just hope the director doesn't adhere too fanatically to his dictum
about furthering the story with each scene. Any good adaptation of
Tolkien must do more than simply relate the central narrative -- it
must dramatize the *world* of Tolkien as well. IMO, that requires at
least some delving into ancillary matters that may not push the plot
forward very much. We'll see.
Joe Ramirez
db
db
Anthony J. Bryant wrote in message <373508...@indiana.edu>...
>db wrote:
>>
>> Think about this just a sec before responding: How about Steven Seagal
for
>> Aragorn? He's got the face, build, and he's a good swordsman
>> db
>
Thomas Bagwell
news:QVCY2.520$AZ2...@newsr2.maine.rr.com...
> I had picked Rutger Hauer for Théoden, but your "Aragron" idea is
> interesting .... Good "Gandalf" pick, too, although I also like
Patrick
> McGoohan. I'm holding out for Ed Harris to be Elrond, but I might
settle
> for Celeborn.
I could see Patrick Stewart as Elrond. He has a certain 'ageless'
quality about him.
Tom B.
Nathan E. Banks <Paganini>
become of Mr. Worf and the hobbits.
Glrofindel: But sir! Your place is on the bridge!
Elrond: You're right, of course. I may need to loose the waters...
Glorfindel <Heading for the turbo-staircase>: On my way sir! Asfaloth,
you're with me.
--
Paganini <Nathan E. Banks>
MOOk, the Great High Llama
ICQ 34492883
http://web.madisontelco.com/~paganini
Thomas Bagwell <tnba...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7h88jv$517$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Jon Lennart Beck
>Elrond: Number One, I'm taking an away team to see if I can discover what's
>become of Mr. Worf and the hobbits.
>Glrofindel: But sir! Your place is on the bridge!
>Elrond: You're right, of course. I may need to loose the waters...
>Glorfindel <Heading for the turbo-staircase>: On my way sir! Asfaloth,
>you're with me.
Mixing worlds again again. Wonder what ME would look like if we
introduced Kzinti and velociraptors into it, and sexual mores like in Julian
May's books about the Pleistocene Exile. >;-}
BTW, is Patrick Stewart naturally bald? Elrond sure isn't.
Jon L. Beck.
Thomas Bagwell
news:L93_2.729$8i4...@news.get2net.dk...
> Nathan E. Banks skrev i meddelelsen
<7h9o31$87q$1...@news3.infoave.net>...
>
> >Elrond: Number One, I'm taking an away team to see if I can
discover what's
> >become of Mr. Worf and the hobbits.
> >Glrofindel: But sir! Your place is on the bridge!
> >Elrond: You're right, of course. I may need to loose the waters...
> >Glorfindel <Heading for the turbo-staircase>: On my way sir!
Asfaloth,
> >you're with me.
> Mixing worlds again again. Wonder what ME would look like if we
> introduced Kzinti and velociraptors into it, and sexual mores like
in Julian
> May's books about the Pleistocene Exile. >;-}
Well...Stewart has done other things besides Star Trek.
> BTW, is Patrick Stewart naturally bald? Elrond sure isn't.
You see, the film makers have access to this wonderful technology to
address such matters...it's called a 'wig'... :)
Tom B.
Lisa Hilton
But I do think he isn't tall enough.
About the physical appeal--Aragorn's apparent age changed a bit in the book. I
recal that as their floating past the carved statues of the kings, he looks a lot
younger and more kingly than at other times. So maybe have a good looking guy, but
use lots of make-up. They can do great things with make-up, I'm told. :) And don't
forget--Aragorn gets the girl in the end. And could have had another, too. :)
Lisa
Ionesco
el9...@central.ntua.wrong (Dimitris Tsallas) wrote:
> PJ: At this point in time Bombadil is out. The main reason is not just
> time or pace, but one of simple narrative focus ... the Bombadil
> sequence has so little to do with Sauron or the Ring, it is difficult
> to justify the screen time. It simply doesn't give us any vital new
> information. A very simplest rule of thumb that I use in movie
> storytelling is to try and further the story with each new scene.
>
But Tom Bombadil has everything to do with the War of the Ring!!!! I'm
not what you would call a Tolkien fanatic (I haven't read the books in
ten years), but I think I'm right. In the final battle, Eowyn is only
able to kill the King of the Nazgul because Merry distracts him by
stabbing him in the calf. It would have been impossible for him to
even touch the Nazgul if the sword hadn't been forged by the Numenorian
Kings. Merry would have never got the sword if the hobbits hadn't
stumbled upon the barrow wights. And they never would have gotten away
alive if it hadn't been for Tom Bombadil. So he is very important to
the story other than just being an entertaining character. Maybe that
is way too much to fit into a movie, or even a series of movies, but I
hope they don't completely neglect the scene where the Hobbits get
their swords, or fail to show Merry's heroism in the battle for Minas
Tirith just because it was "too hard to fit that Bombadil thing in."
They need to get the plot right at the very least IMO.
--
L'enfer c'est les autres...
...à moins qu'ils soient rhinocéros...
...et puis il faut courir très vite.
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
wes :O)
--
Walking across the thin ice of my dreams,
fearing the cold waters of reality,
Yet onward I tread.
wes :O)
ICQ 33976014
Lisa Hilton <ll...@email.byu.edu> wrote in message
news:373A3E53...@email.byu.edu...
Adam Barnard
> In article <373b8852...@news.ntua.gr>,
> el9...@central.ntua.wrong (Dimitris Tsallas) wrote:
>
> > PJ: At this point in time Bombadil is out. The main reason is not just
> > time or pace, but one of simple narrative focus ... the Bombadil
> > sequence has so little to do with Sauron or the Ring, it is difficult
> > to justify the screen time. It simply doesn't give us any vital new
> > information. A very simplest rule of thumb that I use in movie
> > storytelling is to try and further the story with each new scene.
> >
>
> But Tom Bombadil has everything to do with the War of the Ring!!!! I'm
> not what you would call a Tolkien fanatic (I haven't read the books in
> ten years), but I think I'm right. In the final battle, Eowyn is only
> able to kill the King of the Nazgul because Merry distracts him by
> stabbing him in the calf. It would have been impossible for him to
> even touch the Nazgul if the sword hadn't been forged by the Numenorian
> Kings. Merry would have never got the sword if the hobbits hadn't
> stumbled upon the barrow wights. And they never would have gotten away
> alive if it hadn't been for Tom Bombadil. So he is very important to
> the story other than just being an entertaining character. Maybe that
> is way too much to fit into a movie, or even a series of movies, but I
> hope they don't completely neglect the scene where the Hobbits get
> their swords, or fail to show Merry's heroism in the battle for Minas
> Tirith just because it was "too hard to fit that Bombadil thing in."
> They need to get the plot right at the very least IMO.
I believe Jackson went on in the interview to say that if the movie was
successful he would consider going back and filming the Bombadil scene along
with any other possibly cut parts for a special DVD version. As for the
blade the fact of the matter is it's acquisition could EASILY be explained
away. They could pick it up in Rivendell where I'm sure there are plenty of
Numenorean artifacts.
dee almquist
--
Dee Almquist "The beginning of contention is as one letting out the waters;
so before the quarrel has burst forth, take your leave."
Adam Barnard <bee...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:373B3276...@mail.utexas.edu...
> Ionesco wrote:
>
> > In article <373b8852...@news.ntua.gr>,
> > el9...@central.ntua.wrong (Dimitris Tsallas) wrote:
> >
> > > PJ: At this point in time Bombadil is out. The main reason is not just
> > > time or pace, but one of simple narrative focus ...
snip> > But Tom Bombadil has everything to do with the War of the
Ring!!!! I'm
--snip--
As for the
> blade the fact of the matter is it's acquisition could EASILY be explained
> away. They could pick it up in Rivendell where I'm sure there are plenty
of
> Numenorean artifacts.
>
oh man... bad news. not only would that be leaving out essential plot
development but actually changing the story line from original. although it
wouldn't surprise me to see it happen, it would be a damned shame!
voravor
Schmindependent...) are not the needs of faithful Tolkien-ites. Expect LOTR
movie to be a different entity, just as in any rendering of a novel.
Expect this: End of Book I, Frodo on Glorfindel's BROWN horse, reigns in and
with great defiance, Sam beside him waving a sword, uses the Ring and blasts the
Nazgul. Obnoxious ZOOM IN ON Frodo's bearded face. He cries, zapping a Black
Rider (triumphant end of ACT I, convenient excuse to keep PJ's cgi contractors
happy by placing some of their work in the first 3 or 4 minutes of the film, in
case people walk out...), "By Galadriel (chinsy cinematic foreshadowing) Sauron
will perish! Take that!" BLAMO!
Or something...
vee
Ian Galbraith
:The needs of Hollywood (and make no mistake, Miramax IS Hollywood. Independent
:Schmindependent...) are not the needs of faithful Tolkien-ites. Expect LOTR
:movie to be a different entity, just as in any rendering of a novel.
:Expect this: End of Book I, Frodo on Glorfindel's BROWN horse, reigns in and
:with great defiance, Sam beside him waving a sword, uses the Ring and blasts the
:Nazgul. Obnoxious ZOOM IN ON Frodo's bearded face. He cries, zapping a Black
:Rider (triumphant end of ACT I, convenient excuse to keep PJ's cgi contractors
:happy by placing some of their work in the first 3 or 4 minutes of the film, in
:case people walk out...), "By Galadriel (chinsy cinematic foreshadowing) Sauron
:will perish! Take that!" BLAMO!
:Or something...
So I take it you don't know anything about Peter Jackson, his personal
integrity, or the production details of LOTR. The film is being produced
and filmed in NZ far away from Hollywood and it affords Jackson great
liberties in producing the films the way he wants.
[snip]
Be Seeing You
--
Ian Galbraith
Email: igalb...@ozonline.com.au ICQ#: 7849631
"I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination
is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination
encircles the world." - Albert Einstein
Euan Kilgour
igalb...@ozonline.com.au (Ian Galbraith) wrote:
> On Mon, 24 May 1999 11:15:53 -0400, voravor wrote:
>
> :The needs of Hollywood (and make no mistake, Miramax IS Hollywood.
Independent
> :Schmindependent...) are not the needs of faithful Tolkien-ites. Expect LOTR
> :movie to be a different entity, just as in any rendering of a novel.
>
> :Expect this: End of Book I, Frodo on Glorfindel's BROWN horse, reigns in and
> :with great defiance, Sam beside him waving a sword, uses the Ring and
blasts the
> :Nazgul. Obnoxious ZOOM IN ON Frodo's bearded face. He cries, zapping a Black
> :Rider (triumphant end of ACT I, convenient excuse to keep PJ's cgi
contractors
> :happy by placing some of their work in the first 3 or 4 minutes of the
film, in
> :case people walk out...), "By Galadriel (chinsy cinematic
foreshadowing) Sauron
> :will perish! Take that!" BLAMO!
>
> :Or something...
>
> So I take it you don't know anything about Peter Jackson, his personal
> integrity, or the production details of LOTR. The film is being produced
> and filmed in NZ far away from Hollywood and it affords Jackson great
> liberties in producing the films the way he wants.
Hate to be cynical, but I'll bet you the studio will have someone on set
during the filming, and probably step in after post production and trim
the movie down to something they want it to be.
--
To reply via email, remove the spam block from the address above.
Louis Epstein
: The needs of Hollywood (and make no mistake, Miramax IS Hollywood. Independent
: Schmindependent...) are not the needs of faithful Tolkien-ites. Expect LOTR
: movie to be a different entity, just as in any rendering of a novel.
Anyone who thinks ANY film could do justice to TLotR is dreaming.
If you love the book,hate the movie!!!
: Expect this: End of Book I, Frodo on Glorfindel's BROWN horse, reigns in and
: with great defiance, Sam beside him waving a sword, uses the Ring and blasts the
: Nazgul. Obnoxious ZOOM IN ON Frodo's bearded face. He cries, zapping a Black
: Rider (triumphant end of ACT I, convenient excuse to keep PJ's cgi contractors
: happy by placing some of their work in the first 3 or 4 minutes of the film, in
: case people walk out...), "By Galadriel (chinsy cinematic foreshadowing) Sauron
: will perish! Take that!" BLAMO!
:
: Or something...
:
: vee
:
:
voravor
knowledge is not necessarily the mark of a cynic), it is not necessarily the needs of
the director or even the producer that gain hegemony in the filmmaking process. A
rough cut, or even a director's cut does not equal the exec's cut. PJ will have his
"cut". And I'm sure it will be to his storytelling standards. It will more than
likely be an interesting film. But don't expect Hollywood to have ANY faith to JRRT
simply because we all love JRRT. The bottom line, the ONLY bottom line, even for the
"independent" Miramax, is box office. PJ and "artistic freedom" notwithstanding.
Frankly, as a producer, I am not opposed to meeting the needs of the exec(s). I feel
it is part of the medium. I think it is cynical and anti-productive to exclude ANY
creative hierarchy that does not place the director's creative vision forefront. I am
inclined to do so, yet not unaware of the brilliance that an exec can bring to a
production.
Compare the literary works of Toni Morrison to their film and you'll see my point.
Her attitude is IMO the healthiest an author can have to their work being rendered
into film. At some point, the film becomes "something other than" the literary
entity.
Vora
Ian Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 24 May 1999 11:15:53 -0400, voravor wrote:
>
> :The needs of Hollywood (and make no mistake, Miramax IS Hollywood. Independent
> :Schmindependent...) are not the needs of faithful Tolkien-ites. Expect LOTR
> :movie to be a different entity, just as in any rendering of a novel.
>
> :Expect this: End of Book I, Frodo on Glorfindel's BROWN horse, reigns in and
> :with great defiance, Sam beside him waving a sword, uses the Ring and blasts the
> :Nazgul. Obnoxious ZOOM IN ON Frodo's bearded face. He cries, zapping a Black
> :Rider (triumphant end of ACT I, convenient excuse to keep PJ's cgi contractors
> :happy by placing some of their work in the first 3 or 4 minutes of the film, in
> :case people walk out...), "By Galadriel (chinsy cinematic foreshadowing) Sauron
> :will perish! Take that!" BLAMO!
>
> :Or something...
>
> So I take it you don't know anything about Peter Jackson, his personal
> integrity, or the production details of LOTR. The film is being produced
> and filmed in NZ far away from Hollywood and it affords Jackson great
> liberties in producing the films the way he wants.
>
Jouni Karhu
>Hate to be cynical, but I'll bet you the studio will have someone on set
>during the filming, and probably step in after post production and trim
>the movie down to something they want it to be.
Yeah, that's usually called 'the director' :)
--
'I have something to say! | 'The Immoral Immortal' \o JJ Karhu
It is better to burn out, | -=========================OxxxxxxxxxxxO
than to fade away!' | kur...@modeemi.cs.tut.fi /o
Jouni Karhu
>Actually, I am familiar with his work . But as you hopefully are aware (and this
>knowledge is not necessarily the mark of a cynic), it is not necessarily the needs of
>the director or even the producer that gain hegemony in the filmmaking process. A
>rough cut, or even a director's cut does not equal the exec's cut. PJ will have his
>"cut". And I'm sure it will be to his storytelling standards. It will more than
>likely be an interesting film. But don't expect Hollywood to have ANY faith to JRRT
>simply because we all love JRRT. The bottom line, the ONLY bottom line, even for the
>"independent" Miramax, is box office. PJ and "artistic freedom" notwithstanding.
>
>Frankly, as a producer, I am not opposed to meeting the needs of the exec(s). I feel
>it is part of the medium. I think it is cynical and anti-productive to exclude ANY
>creative hierarchy that does not place the director's creative vision forefront. I am
>inclined to do so, yet not unaware of the brilliance that an exec can bring to a
>production.
LoTR is New Line's baby now, after Miramax wanted to do only one
movie, not two as Jackson wanted. He then got some time to find
another backer, and found New Line Cinema. What is fun is that the
head honchos at New Line are LoTR fans themselves. They looked at the
prepared material Jackson had with him and said, let's do three films
instead of two.
The situation is not as bad as you make it out to be.
Prembone
Karhu) wrote:
>LoTR is New Line's baby now, after Miramax wanted to do only one
>movie, not two as Jackson wanted. He then got some time to find
>another backer, and found New Line Cinema. What is fun is that the
>head honchos at New Line are LoTR fans themselves. They looked at the
>prepared material Jackson had with him and said, let's do three films
>instead of two.
>
>The situation is not as bad as you make it out to be.
Thank Elton! I wish more people would say this, often and boldly. I
mean, if PJ can't come up with the Almighty Version that will please
everyone, at the least it promises to be better than the cartoon
versions we've gotten so far. PJ should be eternally grateful to
Rankin-Bass, in particular, for setting the bar so low. ;-) At worst,
I figure people will come out of the theater saying, "Well, it's no
substitute for the book, but it was definitely better than the
cartoons."
Of course, that's no consolation to a True Worshiper of The Tolkien,
who will settle for nothing less than Their Own Vision of what
Faithful to The Book entails. But the rest of us will be happy to
take their seats and their popcorn and settle in for a pleasant
journey---at least till the ending....waaaaahhhhh.....
All Homage To The Elton!!!
Prembone (remove b.s. phrase when replying)
The Elton John Worship Page
http://www.geocities.com/~prembone/elton/
Ian Galbraith
First a point of netiquette, please don't post and email without a warning.
:Actually, I am familiar with his work . But as you hopefully are aware (and this
:knowledge is not necessarily the mark of a cynic), it is not necessarily the needs of
:the director or even the producer that gain hegemony in the filmmaking process. A
:rough cut, or even a director's cut does not equal the exec's cut. PJ will have his
:"cut". And I'm sure it will be to his storytelling standards. It will more than
:likely be an interesting film. But don't expect Hollywood to have ANY faith to JRRT
:simply because we all love JRRT. The bottom line, the ONLY bottom line, even for the
:"independent" Miramax, is box office. PJ and "artistic freedom" notwithstanding.
Going on PJ's history, especially with The Frighteners, he won't do the
work without substantial artistic freedom. Filming in NZ affords him this.
And as someone else has said the New Line are now the producers. The budget
of the films is not large at all, so New Line will have less incentive to
meddle in the product. The films will not have to be blockbusters to turn a
profit.
[snip]
:Compare the literary works of Toni Morrison to their film and you'll see my point.
:Her attitude is IMO the healthiest an author can have to their work being rendered
:into film. At some point, the film becomes "something other than" the literary
:entity.
Sure, and I have no objections to scripts being altered to fit visual
demands rather than literary ones. Although I don't think changes made on
the instruction of the producers are usually creative decisions in this
way, but monetary ones. However once again I trust PJ to show good
judgement on any such changes. He clearly loves the novels and wants to do
them justice. He also clearly has the talent both as writer and director to
do them justice.
voravor
New Line is owned by Miramax.
Miramax is owned by Disney.
See how New Line treats its directors by reviewing the way Tony Kaye was treated by Michael De Luca (exec prod for New Line) in the production "American History X", if you aren't already familiar with it. It is a nightmare for any filmmaker.
http://roughcut.com/features/working.hollywood/tony_kaye.html
Vora
Chris Harvey
>
> Sorry about the email. I'll email you a warning next time.
>
> New Line is owned by Miramax.
>
> Miramax is owned by Disney.
>
> See how New Line treats its directors by reviewing the way
> Tony Kaye was treated by Michael De Luca (exec prod for
> New Line) in the production "American History X", if you
> aren't already familiar with it. It is a nightmare for any
> filmmaker.
New Line, by many other accounts, treats its directors well.
And I think that Tony Kaye brought some of the American
History X situation upon himself -- from everything I've
read, he seems like he's a total pompous ass who's hellbent
on self-promotion.
Chris Harvey
chha...@home.com
voravor
actions, you can see pure philistine evil.
I am very upset because I wanted to do this film, was pitching it, was
developing a screenplay. This happens to me all the time! Oh well...
vora
Chris Harvey wrote:
> voravor wrote:
> >
> > Sorry about the email. I'll email you a warning next time.
> >
> > New Line is owned by Miramax.
> >
> > Miramax is owned by Disney.
> >
> > See how New Line treats its directors by reviewing the way
> > Tony Kaye was treated by Michael De Luca (exec prod for
> > New Line) in the production "American History X", if you
> > aren't already familiar with it. It is a nightmare for any
> > filmmaker.
>