ROTTEN TOMATOES: Ian McKellen Is Not Too Busy for The Hobbit Comments

Ian McKellen Is Not Too Busy for The Hobbit

by Jeff Giles | March 27, 2008

Summary

Even while The Hobbit was in legal limbo, Sir Ian McKellen wasn't shy about letting people know he wanted to reprise his role as Gandalf for the Lord of the Rings prequel(s). Back to Article

(1-42 of 42 posts) | Reply

akatsuki writes:
on Mar 27 2008 05:36 AM

great

(Reply to this)

rockster11 writes:
on Mar 27 2008 05:45 AM

Yep IMO this movie would not work without Ian... Very good news indeed

(Reply to this)

willpower writes:
on Mar 27 2008 05:51 AM

Why two movies?

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on Mar 27 2008 06:16 AM

Joining the chorus:
In a virtually flawless production, McKellan was arguably the single greatest casting move Jackson made.

If it ain't broke, don't get a new wizard.

(Reply to this)

donwillymo writes:
on Mar 27 2008 06:38 AM

Yay! more Hobbits walking around with a ring that they're just gonna throw in a volcano. waste of 13.5 hours. Yay!

(Reply to this)

donwillymo writes:
on Mar 27 2008 06:42 AM

All right, look, there's only one "Return," okay, and it ain't "of the King," it's "of the Jedi."

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Mar 27 2008 07:11 AM

So Don, are you just looking for a fight or what? Return of the King was first published when Lucas was graduating college, so I think King has the advantage. Of course, this is an old argument and really not worth the effort. They're both great movies and different enough that they needn't really be compared.

But thanks for sharing your obviously well thought out opinion.

(Reply to this)

donwillymo writes:
on Mar 27 2008 07:14 AM

Horton going for the threepeat!!! The michael jordan of the box office.

(Reply to this)

HurinThalion writes:
on Mar 27 2008 07:25 AM

My guess is that movie 1 will end with the the dwarves being captured by the elves of mirkwood.

(Reply to this)

donwillymo writes:
on Mar 27 2008 07:26 AM

Hey they're midgets not dwarfs damnit!

(Reply to this)

donwillymo writes:
on Mar 27 2008 07:41 AM

they also prefer lil' bastards, shortstuff, or "not normals"...be a little more politically correct hurinthalion, sh't!

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Mar 27 2008 07:52 AM

Well, don't I feel silly. Here I was trying to be logical when we're obviously dealing with someone who's off his meds.

And Hurin, I think an earlier report (three months or so ago) mentioned that the first movie would be The Hobbit in entirety and the second movie would detail the events between The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings. Sort of a prequel sequel, I guess. Of course, that could all change by the time it actually happens.

(Reply to this)

dedalus7 writes:
on Mar 27 2008 07:55 AM

In reply to this comment (#1655218)
"If it ain't broke don't get a new wizard"

Now that is a quote to live by. And I do.

(Reply to this)

John Z. Delorean writes:
on Mar 27 2008 08:28 AM

If they're as boring and drawn out as the first 3 count me out although I'm sure guillermo will make them worth watching.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Mar 27 2008 09:06 AM

Cool, while they're at it they should see about getting him in the last couple of Harry Potter movies, That series needs a new Dumbledore. although Half Blood Prince does have a scene that will probably be perfect of Gambon's over-emotional Dumbledore.

(Reply to this)

donwillymo writes:
on Mar 27 2008 09:15 AM

If guillermo makes it along the lines of Pan's Labyrinth then we're in business. No more of this CG sell-out peter jackson crap! LOTR should have gone to del toro to begin with.

(Reply to this)

wingnut171 writes:
on Mar 27 2008 09:31 AM

Funnily enough, the Gandalf part was first offered to Sean Connery. He turned it down because he "didn't understand it", so it went to McKellen. And that's your world-skewing tidbit for the day!

(Reply to this)

JamesEarl writes:
on Mar 27 2008 09:35 AM

In reply to this comment (#1655304)
Actually, I believe don was quoting Randal from Clerks II, so if you want to argue about who has the "advantage", you might wanna give Kevin Smith a call and take it up with him.

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Mar 27 2008 10:12 AM

In reply to this comment (#1655693)
Ah, I see. Didn't see Clerks 2 so didn't get the reference, thanks for the clarification. And I might just go over to ViewAskew and tell Kevin what I think, but probably not. ;-)

(Reply to this)

donwillymo writes:
on Mar 27 2008 10:12 AM

I wasn't trying to hide the fact that I got it from a movie or make it my own JamesEarl...I just really love that part the way Randall tears these LOTR fheads up, baby! I totally agreed with everything he said in that scene...I was like the only guy in the theater laughing out loud in that scene. I heard these guys crying in the front of the theater after that part was over. LMAO Kevin Smith ****in rocks you cocksmokers.

(Reply to this)

dahluzz writes:
on Mar 27 2008 10:17 AM

del toro directing his own material = good (pan's)

del toro directing an adaptation = lame (hellboy and soon to be hellboy 2. did you guys see that monster at the end of the trailer? thing had no texture at all. it looks ridiculous and the use of CG is blatantly obvious, unlike pan's where it blended within the stylization of the world he created)

del toro directing the hobbit = me being skeptical and wishing they got alfonso cuaron

(Reply to this)

DarthWonka writes:
on Mar 27 2008 10:29 AM

In reply to this comment (#1655757)
There's room enough in the world for both trilogies, Donny. Let's face it, Star Wars is the waaaaay better story, but LotR is the waaaaay better execution. Just two sides of the same thing. By the way, Kevin Smith liked the Lotr movies quite a bit. The scene in Clerks II was merely a way for him to express his frustration at the fact that many fans saw LotR Star Wars's successor and superior, which you and I both know could never be true, so we should rest easy on the point. (See an Evening With Kevin Smith 2) No need to be angry about it. Usually people who think LotR is better don't get Star Wars anyway, I've come to find. But I love em both.

(Reply to this)

kozworth writes:
on Mar 27 2008 10:38 AM

Ian has been pretty vocal about wanting to reprise his role as Gandalf the Grey, this is nothing new. However, it is nice to know that things will actually work out for him. There is really only one Gandalf anyway, we all know that.

(Reply to this)

Dinobot77 writes:
on Mar 27 2008 10:53 AM

LOL......I just couldn't see Sean Connery in the part of Gandalf. That would be like taking Rosie O'donnel and making her Galadriel.

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Mar 27 2008 11:07 AM

In reply to this comment (#1655770)
Actually they're both stories that use archetypes and the mythical journey as their basis to tell a compelling story. It just comes down to personal choice. I happen to like the LOTR movies much better that the original Star Wars, with the possible exception of Star Wars. Part of that could be because I fell in love with the books several years before the Star Wars films came out. As for the second trilogy, I'd almost rather watch paint dry. But as you say, there's room for both LOTR and SW, and I love them both.

But Donny, let's not hold high the Star Wars banner while calling Peter Jackson a CG sell-out. After all, I think Lucas patented that concept.

(Reply to this)

jaredisme writes:
on Mar 27 2008 11:08 AM

R.I.P. Mr. McKellen, the world mourns your loss...

(Reply to this)

donwillymo writes:
on Mar 27 2008 11:23 AM

So all in all the moral of this thread is that Del Toro and Kevin Smith are the ****! and Peter Jackson sux and the only reason he got credibility was because he was able to make a movie with a monster budget. Give that budget to other up and coming unfortunate directors that don't have a silver spoon up their *** and I guarantee better movies will be made alot better than a stretched out boring meaningless trilogy. Thanks you

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Mar 27 2008 11:42 AM

And here I thought Aknddon3 was gone. Don, are you Aknddon with an alias. No, probably not, because at least you know how to spell. But to say Peter Jackson sucks is just silly. You didn't like the movies, fine, but that doesn't mean they weren't well done. And he needed a monster budget. You're not going to make a movie like Lord of the Rings with the same budget as a romantic comedy. And yes, Del Toro is good (although people seem to conveniently forget Mimic) and sorry, but Kevin is hit or miss. (For every Clerks, he makes a Jersey Girl) Of course, Peter has his share of misfires too. (Frighteners comes to mind) but Peter did not start with a silver spoon. He spent four years, shooting on the weekends with no money and a volunteer crew, to make his first movie, so I think he's earned his stripes. (Not to mention he's won an Oscar for best screenplay)

Anyway, I'm sure this is all going in one ear and out the other, since it's more fun to just rant than actually engage in intelligent conversation. But I feel better throwing this out there.

(Reply to this)

duckmanx88 writes:
on Mar 27 2008 12:59 PM

i'd be hard to imagine the film without him. he his LOTR

(Reply to this)

mpchitown writes:
on Mar 27 2008 01:49 PM

I will always love the original star wars, but considering the movies that both lucas and jackson have put out in the last ten years you'd be a fool to say that lucas is somehow better. Lucas destroyed his beloved series with those disasterous prequels with a budget equal or greater than that of Jackson. He was also too stubborn to realize that he never could nor ever will be able to direct a movie or the actors in it. Lucas is a director far more in love with special effects than the characters that play in it, while Jackson added real emotion in his trilogy. And while I love the original series, the best movies in it (empire strikes back, return of the jedi) were not even directed by Lucas at all. My advice, lucas should produce, limit his screenwriting and not direct ever again.

(Reply to this)

bigteddyt writes:
on Mar 27 2008 02:56 PM

donwillymo is an idiot. he's been posting all day. i wonder if his boss knows that-- boss? i'm sorry, i wonder if his mom knows he's using the netzero account.

and budget will NEVER EVER be the reason for a good movie. i could name a long list, BUT i think the 2 matrix sequels speak loudly enough.

(Reply to this)

martinscorsese25 writes:
on Mar 27 2008 04:49 PM

i still really sad that guillermo is going to do this rather than harry potter(sorry guys , i havent read the hobbit so i dont know if its good)..
yesa yates was good but it lacks something.... if guillermo did DH then WB would have pursuaded him to hire John Williams for the last two movies.... F*** YOU NICHOLAS HOOPER!!!

(Reply to this)

vaodsi writes:
on Mar 27 2008 09:03 PM

"BOSS? I'm sorry, I wonder if his MOM...."

THAT WAS BRILLIANT BIGTEDDYT!!!! I LOVE YOU!!!!! i was trying to find a way to say those exact words!!!!!!
Live long and PROSPER BROTHER!!!!!!

(Reply to this)

stabdaddy writes:
on Mar 27 2008 09:10 PM

Wow! I can't wait to see SMAUG!

(Reply to this)

homer42016 writes:
on Mar 27 2008 10:05 PM

In reply to this comment (#1655819)
Could someone put a bottle in this baby's mouth, so maybe he would close his mouth and stop posting things that sound like they came from my 7-year-old cousin's mouth?

I respect everyone's opinion, but if the most intelligent things you have to say are "Peter Jackson sucks" and "Kevin Smith rocks", then you obviously don't have enough IQ to even process the masterpiece that was Lord of the Rings.

If you think Kevin Smith is a better director than Peter Jackson, then you don't know anything about what you're talking about. You think Kevin Smith could have done the movie better? The very idea makes me laugh out loud. I'm not saying Smith is terrible (I actually quite enjoyed Clerks 2), but he himself said in Evening with Kevin Smith that he's not a visual director. And the emotion that Peter Jackson put into those films still impresses me today.

You strike me as the type of person who's favorite movies are those with endless profane language that don't take many brain cells to enjoy. You probably don't even understand most of the deeper, in-depth jokes that Kevin Smith puts into his scripts. I like Kevin Smith's movies, but the incredibly simplistic synopsis of Lord of the Rings in Clerks 2 (a bunch of hobbits walking) is not even skimming the surface. So please, just because your low intelligence quotient limits you to posting immature crap, doesn't mean anyone wants to hear it.

(Reply to this)

homer42016 writes:
on Mar 27 2008 10:13 PM

Also, other than Chasing Amy and Dogma, do Kevin Smith's movies exceed anything beyond friends standing around, talking and arguing about random subjects? Please, don't take this as an insult to Kevin Smith, because I have enjoyed most of his movies, but come on. To try and label Peter Jackson's Rings trilogy as simplistic just reminds me of the word "hypocrite".

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Mar 27 2008 11:32 PM

In reply to this comment (#1656098)
Lets see what movies Peter Jackson puts out in the next 20 years before we decide that battle OK, yeah he's got LOTR's, but where's his Indiana Jones series IMO superior to both LOTR's AND SW's.

(Reply to this)

Lux Obscura writes:
on Mar 28 2008 01:03 AM

nerds unite and rejoice!

(Reply to this)

jacog writes:
on Mar 28 2008 01:19 AM

In reply to this comment (#1655840)
aknddon3 is not gone - his new nick is ajmk123 - I think don is off the hook there.

(Reply to this)

Macedonian writes:
on Mar 28 2008 01:04 PM

uhhh i love kevin smith.. but clerks 2.. yeah you were probably the only guy laughing at that movie... the only star wars movie that has anything on lord of the rings is "empire strikes back" it's the only one that actually deserves all the praise the orginal trilogy gets...

return of the king >>>>>>>>>> return of the jedi

(Reply to this)

minderbinder writes:
on Mar 31 2008 11:56 AM

I hate to say it again, but this thread brings up the questions...

Why doesn't this site have REPORT ABUSE or IGNORE functions?

Please please please?

(Reply to this)

thebbeenn writes:
on Jul 17 2008 04:55 AM

In reply to this comment (#1655801)
Word

Yes, CG can be a really bad. It can look fake and weightless. But the LoTR trilogy has none of those flaws. The golloum character is a sheer masterpiece of animation, just to name an example. Skin, subtle facial movements etc. And let's not forget the eagles, where every wing feather flutters as the wind gusts rush by.

Understand, you see through the illusion only because you KNOW it can't have been done in any other way than CG. Try imagining the balrog as an stiff, awkwardly moving animatronic, or worse... a guy in a suit. Try finding an actor with Gollum's body proportions.

All you people who complain about CG, can you please stop your ooh & aah now, efter nearly 20 years. The problem is you, and your inability to just let go and enjoy a good movie on its own terms, the story that's being told.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

The Hobbit

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links