Ian McKellen (“The Lord of the Rings,” “X-Men,” The Da Vinci Code) has signed on to voice the narrator role in Matthew Vaughn’s romantic fantasy Stardust for Paramount Pictures, says The Hollywood Reporter. The film, which boasts a cast including Claire Danes, Robert De Niro, Michelle Pfeiffer and Charlie Cox, wrapped production in the fall. McKellen is recording his part during postproduction before the film’s July 27 release date. [More]
Month: January 2007
caoil writes: On Wednesday, January 3rd, Mellynannui (the Rings fan group for the Lower Mainland of BC) is hosting another Professor’s Birthday Toast. The event starts at 7pm, and will be held again this year at Red Robin at Metrotown. (#112 – 4640 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC). Hope to see some local Ringers out!
John D. Rateliff moved to Wisconsin in 1981 in order to work with the Tolkien manuscripts at Marquette University. He has been active in Tolkien scholarship for many years, delivering papers on Tolkien and the Inklings. While at Marquette, he assisted in the collation of their holdings with those Christopher Tolkien was editing for his History of Middle-earth series. A professional editor, he lives in the Seattle area with his wife and three cats (only one of whom is named after a Tolkien character). His upcoming book, History of “The Hobbit,” is described by TolkienLibrary.com as “An essential resource book for the forthcoming movie adaptation of The Hobbit.”
TheOneRing.net asked John to comment on the recent activity regarding The Hobbit, here is what he had to say: As I see it, there are two paths a film of THE HOBBIT could take, one being to stress its affinities with THE LORD OF THE RINGS and the other to emphasis its independence (it was after all originally written as a stand-alone story).
For the first path, Peter Jackson is obviously the man for the job. Only he could make a film of THE HOBBIT in such as way that it seems an extension of the three LORD OF THE RINGS movies, which is unquestionably what the overwhelming majority of people who saw the LotR movies want. Without Jackson at the helm, without his team of scriptwriters and his crew and his special effects people, it’d be impossible to make a film of THE HOBBIT that has the look and feel of the LotR films, even with New Zealand locations and the retention of some of the cast Jackson assembled. With Jackson in charge, I have every confidence he could make a film of THE HOBBIT just as good as his films of THE LORD OF THE RINGS (and that’s saying something).
For the second path, my feeling is that if Jackson and his team don’t make the film, then everything should change. New director, new scriptwriter, new cast, new crew, new concept artists, new composer, new special effects house, new locations. There’s more than one way to make a good film out of THE HOBBIT (and more than one bad way too, or course), and whoever would wind up in charge under that scenario should concentrate on making the best possible movie, not on doing things the way Jackson would have done them.
My greatest fear is that it’ll fall between these stools, and we’ll get pseudo-Jackson or “Jackson-lite”: an attempt to film something that looks like Jackson’s work without Jackson himself, which I think would be disastrous.
So, for me the best possible outcome would be for Jackson to make the film, in New Zealand, starring the two Sir Ians (McKellan and Holm), backed by Shore and Lee and Howe and the rest, but hopefully with more fidelity to Tolkien’s storyline and without the occasional gaffs that marred the second and third films ( e.g., the characterizations of Faramir and Denethor). I’ve come to accept that Holm’s starting as Bilbo is unlikely, but given the excellence of his performance in the first film, one can hope. That said, there are any number of talented actors out there who could play these characters — after all, I was one of those bitterly disappointed that Sean Connery was not cast as Gandalf in THE LORD OF THE RINGS, only to be deeply impressed by McKellan’s superlative performance, which I really think could hardly be bettered. So if we were forced to do without Sir Ian Holm I’m sure they could find someone else who could do a fine job — my own personal choice would be Sir Hugh Laurie, who’s about the right age to play Bilbo and has shown he can do both silly (Bertie Wooster) and serious (House).
As for a LotR prequel film, it’s an interesting idea but I don’t see how it’s practicable. There simply isn’t a single story between Bilbo’s adventures and Frodo’s quest to build a film around. There are lots of interesting snippets — Balin’s foray into Moria, the adventures of young Aragorn, and the like — but they don’t add up to any kind of coherent story. A tv special might be able to get away with a series of vignettes, but I don’t see how that would work in a theatrical film. In the end I’m reminded of Tolkien’s own decision, after writing a single chapter of his projected sequel to THE LORD OF THE RINGS, “The New Shadow”, to leave well enough alone, and think the studios would be wise to do the same.
Lynnette Porter is the author of Unsung Heroes of The Lord of the Rings: From the Page to the Screen and other books about popular culture, including Unlocking the Meaning of Lost: An Unauthorized Guide. She contributed essays to Lembas for the Soul and a chapter in the forthcoming book, How We Became Middle-Earth. She is a frequent speaker about film, television, and popular culture at academic conferences such as the Popular Culture Association, Tolkien 2005, and Hawaiian International Conference on the Arts and Humanities, as well as fan events like ORC and ELF . She has been conducting research at the Tolkien archives at Marquette University and will soon return to New Zealand in preparation for writing two Lord of the Rings-related books.
TheOneRing.net asked Lynnette to comment on the recent activity regarding The Hobbit, here is what she had to say:
How would you feel about another director making The Hobbit?
The importance of the choice of the director making The Hobbit depends on your perception of whether Tolkien’s world can be easily captured on film. Many fans of Tolkien’s book weren’t happy with Peter Jackson’s adaptation of LotR and probably wouldn’t be thrilled with his adaptation of The Hobbit. Some people prefer books to films and won’t be completely satisfied with any cinematic adaptation of a beloved book. Others still believe that a book like LotR never will be successfully transferred to film. Whoever ends up filming The Hobbit will run into this problem of adapting a well-loved book for a very different medium.
With that said, I enjoyed Jackson’s vision of Middle-earth and found the LotR films very entertaining. Were they faithful adaptations of my favorite book? Not really—they succeeded in some areas more than others. I still cringe at dwarf-tossing jokes and wish that Legolas hadn’t been quite so much of a special effects darling. Are there moments to which I return year after year, viewing after viewing? Oh, yes—Bilbo’s birthday party, Gandalf’s words of wisdom to Frodo, the loving relationships of the hobbits. The films are among my favorites, but they present a different story than Tolkien wrote. If I had the power to trust The Hobbit to any director, however, I’d choose Peter Jackson. He knows how to make a good film, and if I don’t agree with all his choices as a director, well, no director’s vision will replace the mental images I’ve long carried from Tolkien’s words.
Compared to The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit should be an easier story to film, and I’d like to see Peter Jackson’s adaptation. It’s important for one consistent vision of Middle-earth to be completed, and this seems to be the one opportunity for both The Hobbit and LotR to be presented as a uniform work of art. In the future, other directors undoubtedly will film LotR or create Middle-earth on stage (a theatrical version bowed in Toronto in 2006 and will debut in London in 2007). Before Jackson’s LotR gets much older, audiences should be able to see his adaptation of The Hobbit.
I agree with Anne Petty that “franchise” films directed by different artists vary greatly in quality. Although I liked many elements of Alfonso Cuaron’s Harry Potter film, I disliked the lack of continuity in the series. (I also have to mentally separate the Harry Potter books from films, because I find myself critiquing what has been changed in the adaptation process.) The darker vision presented in Cuaron’s film matched the young characters’ increasing maturity but did little to provide a smooth transition from one year at Hogwarts to another. Continuity is especially important for the success of “prequels” like The Hobbit and the rumored second film, and Peter Jackson should be selected to provide that continuity.
The early scenes of the Shire, as Jackson presented them, are lush and inviting; they bring to life the cozy, small-town life I envisioned in the book. Returning to that as well as new cinematic settings is something that I would pay to see…again and again. If The Hobbit is to be filmed, it must be a high-quality, as-faithful-as-possible adaptation. Tolkien fans expect that level of quality—and commitment from the entire creative team involved in the film project. I believe that Peter Jackson is best qualified to provide both.
What do you think about another country standing in for The Shire and Middle-earth?
Again there’s the ongoing controversy whether Middle-earth should be England or New Zealand. I’m biased in this regard: I’ve been smitten with New Zealand for a few years and travel there as often as possible to conduct research or just visit. I loved the variety of geography in LotR and would enjoy seeing more of New Zealand on film.
What I would oppose is a film shot completely in studio. The country may not be as important as the quality of sets and the realistic establishment of setting. The Hobbit needs to be visually stimulating, which requires a successful blend of studio and location shooting. New Zealand could provide both.
Would you want to see another actor play Gandalf?
No! Ian McKellen is “my” Gandalf. Although other actors undoubtedly could do justice to the role, McKellen personified in particular Gandalf the Grey. Seeing him in this role again would help provide continuity between films as well as give us one more chance to see a great actor playing such a beloved character.
What do you think of this rumored “other LOTR prequel” movie?
When I first heard this rumor, I was concerned about the direction the story would take. The success of a second film depends on the director chosen for the project. Although I enjoy Sam Raimi’s films, for example, I don’t think I’d be as eager to see his prequel to LotR, primarily because I suspect that I’d see much more Raimi than Tolkien. Although Peter Jackson took liberties with Tolkien’s LotR, I believe that he tried to incorporate as much of Tolkien’s language and plot as possible. With his experience gained from the LotR adaptations and from his knowledge of Tolkien (and selection of knowledgeable advisors and collaborators), Jackson is much more likely to create a prequel that will make sense within the history of Middle-earth and the series of films.
I often read good fan fiction that expands Tolkien’s Middle-earth, either by creating new characters and storylines or providing gap-fillers from LotR. A well-done prequel could do the same; it wouldn’t be Tolkien’s work, but it could be a realistic expansion of the story based on the Professor’s world. A successful prequel requires knowledgeable writers and a director who respect Tolkien’s work but are creative enough to add more stories to the mythology. If the prequel can be done well, I’d like to see it—I always long for more Middle-earth!
– Lynnette Porter
Amy H. Sturgis is a scholar of science fiction and fantasy and Assistant Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies at Belmont University. She is the author of multiple books, book chapters, and articles, and a regular guest speaker at universities and conventions across the U.S. and Canada (including the recent ORC and Gathering of the Fellowship events in 2006). Some of her most recent works include contributions to Tolkien on Film: Essays on Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings (2005), Mythlore (2006), and The J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: Scholarship and Critical Assessment (2006). She is the editor of the first scholarly English edition of Baron de la Motte Fouqué’s epic precursor to Tolkien, The Magic Ring (2006), as well as the forthcoming Past Watchful Dragons: Fantasy and Faith in the World of C.S. Lewis (2007). This year Sturgis was awarded the 2006 Imperishable Flame Award for Tolkien/Inklings Scholarship by Heren Istarion, the Northeast Tolkien Society, and was the Scholar Guest of Honor for the Mythopoeic Society’s annual Mythcon conference. Visit her official website at www.amyhsturgis.com.
TheOneRing.net asked Amy to comment on the recent activity regarding The Hobbit, here is what she had to say: I find the current situation between New Line Cinema and Peter Jackson to be unfortunate, because 1) this turn of events offers disappointment and even bitterness in place of the love and enthusiasm many Ringers feel for Tolkien’s source texts, their adaptations, and the larger Tolkien community, and 2) it also may dissuade future filmmakers with passion, commitment, and vision from pursuing their dreams as Peter Jackson has done, for fear of encountering the same frustrations Jackson has described. In short, it seems bad both for fandom and business for such controversy to repay such success.
My feelings about a film adaptation of The Hobbit are mixed. To be fair, they would have been mixed even with Peter Jackson at the helm. The Hobbit is a very different text – it is a classical work, on the model of Beowulf, as opposed to the medieval Lord of the Rings – and thus it faces unique challenges when making the transition to the medium of film. The urge for Jackson to “fix it,” or try to create a seamless piece of cinematic storytelling consistent with his preexisting film trilogy, might stretch the tale out of all recognizable shape. Moreover, a Jackson Hobbit might add to the general attitude that Jackson’s adaptations of Tolkien are definitive, the ultimate and final word on the subject, and I think this is extremely short-sighted. As Tolkien has proven, the true test of great art is that it inspires others to become artists themselves. Jackson was not the first to move Middle-Earth to the silver screen, nor should he be the last. This detracts nothing from Jackson’s recent accomplishments, but only emphasizes Tolkien’s original ones. John Boorman’s Excalibur was hailed as the definitive cinematic interpretation of Arthurian legend in 1981, and yet over half a dozen new Arthurian films have been made in as many years in the 21st century. Hobbits are not Jackson’s any more than the Knights of the Round Table are Boorman’s. Tolkien knew Middle-Earth was big enough for, to use his words, “other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama,” and I am curious about what those others might show us. The same holds true for any “prequel” film that might develop.
I do not deny that it is difficult to envision the Shire existing anywhere but New Zealand, and it is nearly impossible to picture anyone but Sir Ian McKellen portraying Gandalf. The fact I cannot imagine it does not mean that it cannot be done. Fantastic reinterpretations do happen, even when the original interpretations are of the highest order; in the last two years alone, both Christopher Eccleston’s and David Tennant’s outstanding reimaginings of Dr. Who, and Daniel Craig’s excellent recreation of James Bond, prove my point. (Of course, there are unsuccessful examples in recent memory, as well: Michael Gambon is not the “real” Dumbledore.) McKellen’s performance in Jackson’s trilogy is one of four or five that I choose to revisit in my head when I return to the books; one of the others, however, is Sir Ian Holm’s Bilbo Baggins, and I assume that even if we were to see a Hobbit by Jackson sometime in the future, the moment for that casting opportunity has passed. Therefore, even a new Jackson film would fail to be a perfect match – or even a match in the most important way – with the original Jackson trilogy.
Peter Jackson deserves respect and praise for what he has accomplished with his movies, and it appears that he may not be receiving it from those who most benefited from his work. If so, that is deeply regrettable. I hope that those at New Line, when they pursue another filmmaker for The Hobbit, show the foresight to look for someone who will tackle the challenge with at least the same affection and appreciation Jackson showed to the source material. I owe a great deal to Jackson: my Tolkien classes are full thanks to the interest his movies generated. Yet his is not the definitive word on the subject of Tolkien film adaptations. Perhaps someone new will not make the same mistakes Jackson made (and yes, he did make mistakes). Certainly he or she will make brand new ones (and think of the wonderful hours of dissection and debate they will make possible!). The only final word on The Hobbit – or any of Tolkien’s other tales – is Tolkien himself, and since his work opened the door for artistic creation, it should not be locked now.
Most importantly, no matter who directs what when, Tolkien’s words will not change on their pages. The stories will remain.
– Amy H. Sturgis
Osse writes: I would like to inform that Part Two of the opera “Leithian” by Adam Klein – the story about love of Beren and Luthien based on J.R.R. Tolkien’s “Silmarillion” – will be performed on April 14 and 15, 2007 at St. Michael’s Episcopal Church, 225 West 99th Street, New York City. Click here for more info.
We would also like to inform you that at our Tolkien website has an interview with Adam Klein, the composer of the opera. The interview is also available in English. We invite everybody to read it and get to know what a wonderful person Mr Adam Klein is and how long he took to write the opera “Leithian”.