Governator 54 Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 The Hobbit takes place before LOTR. They would have to make him look slightly younger which shouldn't be that difficult, but they absolutely need him in the role because his voice in unmistakable.Yea I agree 100%, the movie would suck without him. Link to post Share on other sites
showstopper24 0 Posted December 19, 2007 Author Share Posted December 19, 2007 The Hobbit takes place before LOTR. They would have to make him look slightly younger which shouldn't be that difficult, but they absolutely need him in the role because his voice in unmistakable.In the Magneto movie they have technology that makes Ian McKellen look a lot younger. Taking a few years off should not be too difficult. Link to post Share on other sites
digitalmonkey 929 Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 In the Magneto movie they have technology that makes Ian McKellen look a lot younger. Taking a few years off should not be too difficult.Lets hope the writer's strike ends soon so they can actually start writing it or they may need the technology to bring McKellan back to life.QUESTION:How would you guys feel if they decided to make these movies in 3D? Link to post Share on other sites
Jadaki 0 Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Lets hope the writer's strike ends soon so they can actually start writing it or they may need the technology to bring McKellan back to life.QUESTION:How would you guys feel if they decided to make these movies in 3D? @ Strike/McKellanI don't think it's likely or needed. I liked the way LOTR looked, I think the fans are expecting the same visual presentation. You don't need fancy effects to sell the Hobbit, the story is good.I'd be disappointed. Link to post Share on other sites
showstopper24 0 Posted December 20, 2007 Author Share Posted December 20, 2007 @ Strike/McKellanI don't think it's likely or needed. I liked the way LOTR looked, I think the fans are expecting the same visual presentation. You don't need fancy effects to sell the Hobbit, the story is good.I'd be disappointed.Ditto-I am expecting and hoping it is going to look like Lord of the Rings. Even though Jackson is not the director, hopefully they will be similar. Link to post Share on other sites
digitalmonkey 929 Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I'd bet that Jackson does indeed end up directing. Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 The Hobbit takes place before LOTR. They would have to make him look slightly younger which shouldn't be that difficult, but they absolutely need him in the role because his voice in unmistakable.Gandalf is about 3,000 years old, the 50 years difference from the Hobbit to LOTR trilogy is really not going to show on someone of that age Yea I agree 100%, the movie would suck without him.^^^^^^ Link to post Share on other sites
Love4hockey 0 Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I had no idea he was that old. Wow he looks great for his age. I thought he was in his fifties. So considering the movies are 6 years old now, I would assume he is too old to play that part now. But since Frodo was supposed to 50ish when he took his journey, I do not think it needs to be a kid or young man to play the part. Anyone from mid 20's to 40 could work.I havn't read the books in a long time, but didn't Frodo have the same birthday as Bilbo, and wasn't he turning 27 at the beginning of his journey? Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I havn't read the books in a long time, but didn't Frodo have the same birthday as Bilbo, and wasn't he turning 27 at the beginning of his journey?Frodo was 33 +/- when Bilbo left and gandalf went to find out about the ring. In the movie it seems like he came back a couple weeks later, but it was 17 years. So Frodo was about 50 when he started his journey with the ring, which lasted 13 months. Link to post Share on other sites
showstopper24 0 Posted December 21, 2007 Author Share Posted December 21, 2007 Gandalf is about 3,000 years old, the 50 years difference from the Hobbit to LOTR trilogy is really not going to show on someone of that ageThat's why Ian McKellen should take up the role. Anyone else would be bad. I liked the first Harry Potter movie, the second one was OK but the rest sucked. I think part of this was because Richard Harris died and he played Dumbledore amazingly.Frodo was 33 +/- when Bilbo left and gandalf went to find out about the ring. In the movie it seems like he came back a couple weeks later, but it was 17 years. So Frodo was about 50 when he started his journey with the ring, which lasted 13 months.Yea I thought Frodo was over 50 years old when he started the journey in Lord of the Rings. Link to post Share on other sites
Mercury69 3 Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 I heard the sequel is going to feature Isaiah Washington reprising his role of Kenneth, from Out of Sight, as a psycho hood who ends up starting a ghetto war in Bree. Link to post Share on other sites
donk4life 34 Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 I heard the sequel is going to feature Isaiah Washington reprising his role of Kenneth, from Out of Sight, as a psycho hood who ends up starting a ghetto war in Bree.They should get Denzel instead.. Link to post Share on other sites
Mercury69 3 Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 They should get Denzel instead..Morgan Freeman as narrator? Link to post Share on other sites
Jadaki 0 Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 Morgan Freeman as narrator?Shawshank Hobbit Wins! Link to post Share on other sites
donk4life 34 Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 Morgan Freeman as narrator?Get busy livin', or get busy diein' Shawshank Hobbit Wins!I was thinking more along the lines of Hobbiton Gangster, but either one is oscar worthy.. Link to post Share on other sites
Jadaki 0 Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 In case anyone interested had not yet heard, this movie is at a screeching halt thanks to New Line's creative accounting trying to screw the Tolkien Estate out of their share of the profit from the first 3 films. New Line facing 150 million dollar lawsuit that could take rights to the Hobbit film away from New Line. Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 In case anyone interested had not yet heard, this movie is at a screeching halt thanks to New Line's creative accounting trying to screw the Tolkien Estate out of their share of the profit from the first 3 films. New Line facing 150 million dollar lawsuit that could take rights to the Hobbit film away from New Line. Assfaggots!I was really looking forward to this.On a different note, I don't understand why coprorations do this crap. Same thing with Nike. They paid that lady like $50 to design the swoosh, which is one of the top 5 recognized symbols in the world. Giver her something, IMO she deserves it. Same thing here, Tolknenwrote a great piece of literature, that New Line is capitalizing off of huge, pay the family their money. Link to post Share on other sites
Governator 54 Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Assfaggots!I was really looking forward to this.On a different note, I don't understand why coprorations do this crap. Same thing with Nike. They paid that lady like $50 to design the swoosh, which is one of the top 5 recognized symbols in the world. Giver her something, IMO she deserves it. Same thing here, Tolknenwrote a great piece of literature, that New Line is capitalizing off of huge, pay the family their money.I agree man...However I must do a small correction lol... She did the swoosh for $35 (her price) and was given stock of the company in the 80s. No one knows how much but I'm sure she's looked after. Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 I agree man...However I must do a small correction lol... She did the swoosh for $35 (her price) and was given stock of the company in the 80s. No one knows how much but I'm sure she's looked after.I don't remember any mention of stock (not saying there was not). And phil night was pretty admimant that he paid her for a job, and that ($35) was all she was getting. Link to post Share on other sites
Governator 54 Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 I don't remember any mention of stock (not saying there was not). And phil night was pretty admimant that he paid her for a job, and that ($35) was all she was getting.He presented her stock in an envelope infront of a lot of people, a diamond ring too with a swoosh in it. I learned it in school.EDIT: My school was nothing to brag about mind u... so I could be full of crap but google seems to support it. Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 He presented her stock in an envelope infront of a lot of people, a diamond ring too with a swoosh in it. I learned it in school.EDIT: My school was nothing to brag about mind u... so I could be full of crap but google seems to support it.Link?When was this? My knowledge of this is at least 10 years old or more, so he could have change obv. Link to post Share on other sites
Jadaki 0 Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Does it really matter, I mean if a person is hired to do a job and they accept knowing what they will be paid does that mean they automatically are entitled to more if something exceeds expectations? Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Does it really matter, I mean if a person is hired to do a job and they accept knowing what they will be paid does that mean they automatically are entitled to more if something exceeds expectations?I agree with you and Phil Knights stance to a certain extent. But at the same time, rewarding someone for creating an Iconic symbol seems the right thing to do, and a good PR move.There is a fine line here, and each situation is different. This one, IMO deserved future compensation.I really could effectively argue both sides. But if I was Phil Knight I would have done something like what Gov said he did. Link to post Share on other sites
JoeyJoJo 18 Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 I really could effectively argue both sides.Well that's just because you're so smart.EDIT: Carolyn Davidson Link to post Share on other sites
Jadaki 0 Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 There is a fine line here, and each situation is different. This one, IMO deserved future compensation.I don't disagree with you that in the end it's worth a lot more than what was paid for it and a decent guy might think giving her some kickbacks on a job well done is justified, but at the same time it shouldn't be expected. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now